A large business couldn’t demonstrate that it was eligible to pursue a bid protest challenging a VA SDVOSB sole source contract award.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that a protester, which was a large business under the NAICS code assigned to the SDVOSB sole source contract, had not demonstrated standing to challenge the contract award. The sole source contract in question wasn’t just any contract, either–but a contract to oversee the VA’s verification process for SDVOSBs and VOSBs.
An agency’s solicitation was not unreasonably vague where the solicitation defined “relevant” past performance to include projects of “a similar dollar value and contract type.”
In a recent bid protest decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected a protester’s assertion that the solicitation was required to identify a specific dollar value associated with relevant past performance, finding that the solicitation’s phrasing was sufficient to allow offerors to compete intelligently.
A contractor’s attempt to challenge an adverse Contractor Performance Assessment Report was not a bid protest subject to the bid protest jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In a recent decision, the Court rejected a protester’s creative attempt to challenge a CPAR as part of a bid protest. Instead, the Court held, a CPAR ordinarily must be challenged through the FAR’s claims and appeals processes–although the Court appeared to leave the door open to bid protest challenges in limited circumstances.
Past performance evaluations are a vital part of many federal procurements. Generally, the evaluation of an offeror’s past performance is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency. But if an agency fails to adequately support its past performance evaluation, its findings cannot be upheld.
The United States Court of Federal Claims recently applied this rule, when it sustained a protest to an agency’s past performance evaluation because the evaluation failed to address the stated evaluation factors. In doing so, the Court provided guidance to both offerors and agencies as to a proper past performance evaluation.
An 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture was not entitled to take advantage of the special mentor-protege exception from affiliation because the joint venture agreement lacked adequate detail.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the SBA had reasonably determined the joint venture to be a large business because the joint venture agreement did not sufficiently address certain requirements. The Court’s decision should be a warning for all 8(a) mentor-protege joint ventures: details matter.
Is the Department of Veterans Affairs required to prioritize service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (“SDVOSBs”) when it buys supplies and services? That, essentially, will be the question before the Supreme Court when it takes up the case of Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. vs. United States. On June 22, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kingdomware will end a long-running battle between the VA and various SDVOSBs, which have accused the VA of creating loopholes to avoid a statutory contracting preference for veterans. Hopefully, the Court will get it right. As a matter of policy and law, the underlying decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is fundamentally flawed.
Many small contractors (and the SBA) were surprised when the Court of Federal Claims held last year that the non-manufacturer rule applies any time the government buys manufactured products–regardless of the NAICS code assigned to the procurement.
Now the U.S. House of Representatives is proposing to fix the confusion caused by the Court’s decision. The House version of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act would amend the Small Business Act to specify that the non-manufacturer rule applies only to contracts for supplies.