I’ve long predicted that Congress would eventually adopt a formal, Government-wide SDVOSB certification program (or “verification” program, if you prefer). Maybe my crystal ball is finally right. As my colleague Matt Schoonover wrote last week, a new bill introduced in the House of Representatives would do just that.
The full text of the bill has now been published. Here are some of the key details of the Government-wide SDVOSB certification proposal.
Despite a longstanding and very common misconception, the VA’s SDVOSB verification requirement doesn’t apply to non-VA SDVOSB contracts.
As the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals recently reiterated, it was “simply not correct” to believe that a company was required to be verified in VetBiz to be awarded a non-VA SDVOSB contract.
Under the SBA’s size regulations, when a size standard calls for a company’s size to be determined by its average annual receipts, the company’s ongoing fiscal year usually isn’t included.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals rejected an argument that the SBA’s evaluation of a company’s size should have included receipts from the company’s current fiscal year.
Contrary to common misconception, a contractor’s small business status under a receipts-based size standard ordinarily is based on the contractor’s last three completed fiscal years–not the last three completed fiscal years for which the contractor has filed a tax return.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that a contractor cannot change the relevant three-year period by delaying filing a tax return for the most recently completed fiscal year.
The SBA should implement a women-owned small business certification program, according to the SBA’s own Inspector General.
In a recent report on management challenges facing the SBA, the SBA Office of Inspector General urged the SBA to adopt a WOSB certification program–and stated that failing to do so may allow ineligible firms to receive WOSB set-aside contracts.
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.
Perhaps no single aspect of federal government contracting causes more confusion than the fact that the government currently runs two SDVOSB programs: one under the VA’s rules and the other under the SBA’s.
The current system can lead to inconsistent results, such as a company being a “SDVOSB” for purposes of VA contracts, but not those issued by other agencies (or vice versa). As SmallGovCon readers know, I am on record as stating that the “two SDVOSB programs” approach is idiotic and ought to be scrapped. (Okay, maybe I wasn’t on record with the word “idiotic” before. I guess I am now.)
But while I cross my fingers and hope that Congress will simplify things, SDVOSBs are stuck with the current system. And, as a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals case demonstrates, SDVOSBs should be aware of the important differences between the two SDVOSB programs.