(Another) Kingdomware Shocker: Oral Argument Suspended

The Kingdomware SDVOSB/VOSB Supreme Court case, which had been scheduled for an oral argument on Monday November 9, is suddenly in a state of limbo.  In an order issued today, the Supreme Court yanked the case from its docket.  The Court directed the parties to submit briefs on whether the contracts in question have been fully performed, and if so, whether full performance renders the case moot.

For Kingdomware and veteran-owned companies everywhere, this is extremely troubling news.  If the Court believes that the case is moot, it will be dismissed–meaning that Kingdomware would lose the war without even getting its day in court.

Briefs from both sides are due November 20, and each side may reply by December 1.  I will keep you posted.

Kingdomware SDVOSB Case: My Interview With Francis Rose

Later this year, the Supreme Court will take up the case of Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States.  The Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was correct to find that the VA need not give SDVOSBs and VOSBs a contracting preference so long as the VA is meeting its SDVOSB and VOSB goals.

If you follow SmallGovCon, you know my position: I think the Federal Circuit’s ruling was fundamentally flawed.  Last week, I spoke with Francis Rose of Federal News Radio about the case.  Click here to listen to my interview with Francis, and be sure to tune in to In Depth With Francis Rose weekdays from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern on Federal News Radio.

Will The Supreme Court Put “Veterans First” In The Kingdomware SDVOSB Case?

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.

Continue reading

VA CVE Verification Does Not Provide Affiliation Shield, Says SBA OHA

Even if the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation has found that a service-disabled veteran “unconditionally” controls a SDVOSB, the SBA may nonetheless determine that other individuals or entities also control the company within the meaning of the SBA’s affiliation rules.

As demonstrated by a recent decision of the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, VA CVE verification does not shield a SDVOSB from an adverse SBA affiliation determination, even if that determination is based on a finding that non-veterans control the company.

Continue reading

SDVOSB’s ESOP Caused Ineligibility, Says SBA OHA

A SDVOSB’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan caused the company to be ineligible under the SBA’s SDVOSB rules because the service-disabled veteran did not own 51% of the ESOP class of stock.

A recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision should serve as a cautionary tale to any SDVOSB contemplating establishing an ESOP–or any other ownership structure consisting of multiple classes of stock.

Continue reading

VA SDVOSB Set-Asides Not Required For Prosthetics, Says GAO

The VA is not required to prioritize SDVOSB set-asides when it obtains prosthetic appliances and related services, according to the GAO.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that a specific statutory exemption allows the VA to procure prosthetic appliances and related services in whatever manner the VA deems best, without regard to the ordinary requirement that the VA prioritize SDVOSB acquisitions.

Continue reading

SDVOSB Fraud: Non-Veteran Arrested For Claiming SDVOSB Status

A New Jersey woman has been arrested and charged with procurement fraud for allegedly falsely certifying that her company was a SDVOSB.

According to a Department of Justice press release, Miriam Friedman falsely claimed that her father-in-law, a retired veteran, owned and operated the business.  According to the DOJ, Friedman’s father-in-law not only had minimal involvement in the business, but is not service-disabled.

Continue reading