Author Archives: Steven Koprince

SDVOSB Not Required To Inform Agency Of Veteran’s Death, Says Court

Posted on by

A SDVOSB was not required to inform a procuring agency that the service-disabled veteran owner had passed away following submission of the SDVOSB’s proposal, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In NEIE, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-164 C (2013), the Court sharply criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for unjustifiably maintaining that the SDVOSB in question was required to inform the EPA of the veteran’s death, even though there is no such requirement in the regulations and the veteran’s death had no impact on the SDVOSB’s contract eligibility.

The NEIE case is not only a good reminder of when a SDVOSB must be eligible to receive a non-VA SDVOSB set-aside (typically, at the time of the initial priced offer), but a troubling example of an over-zealous procuring agency misinterpreting and misapplying the SDVOSB regulations to the detriment of an eligible SDVOSB.

Continue reading →

SmallGovCon Week In Review: December 9-13, 2013

Posted on by

As 2013 begins to draw to a close, there is still no shortage of government contracting news and commentary.

This week, many headlines were dedicated to a GAO report on reverse auctions (as well as the VA’s decision to suspend their use).  Those reverse auction stories, along with articles about the shakeup at the VA CVE, labor law violations, and much more, are in this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review.

Continue reading →

SBA Size Protests: “Bare Allegations” Are Insufficient

Posted on by

A SBA size protest must contain some basis for the belief that the company being protested is not an eligible small business.

As demonstrated in a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, a protester’s “bare allegation” that the protested firm does not qualify is insufficient, and will cause the SBA to dismiss the size protest.

Continue reading →

DOJ Files Complaint In HUBZone Fraud Cause

Posted on by

The Department of Justice has filed a complaint accusing an Ohio construction contractor and its owner of fraudulently obtaining HUBZone certification and HUBZone set-aside contracts.

According to a DOJ press release, the government is alleging that William Richardson, the owner of TAB Construction Co. Inc., made false statements regarding TAB’s principal office to obtain HUBZone certification, then used that certification to win millions of dollars in HUBZone set-aside contracts.

Continue reading →

SmallGovCon Week In Review: Dec. 2-6, 2013

Posted on by

After a Thanksgiving hiatus (which I spent enjoying traditional American pastimes such as eating and watching football, rather than reading bid protest decisions), it’s time to get back to government contracts news.

In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, the VA has cancelled the contract of the company performing SDVOSB verifications.  The implications are anyone’s guess, but they probably aren’t good–and Jill Aitoro’s story in the Washington Business Journal is a “must read” for all SDVOSBs.  Other news and commentary of note includes a new GSA sourcing plan, a breakdown of 8(a) STARS II numbers, “crazy subcontractors” and more.

Continue reading →

SDVOSB Confusion: A Federal News Radio Discussion

Posted on by

The government’s use of two separate SDVOSB programs–with differing rules and requirements–has caused widespread confusion among the very veterans the programs were designed to assist.

Yesterday, I joined Francis Rose of Federal News Radio for a conversation about the government’s two SDVOSB programs.  You can download my audio segment on the Federal News Radio website, and catch Francis every weekday from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. Eastern on Federal News Radio.

Small Business’s “Hardship” Payment Request Leads To Rejected Proposal

Posted on by

A small business’s so-called “hardship request” to vary a solicitation’s payment scheme caused the procuring agency to reject its proposal.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO upheld the agency’s decision, holding that the small business’s proposal was, at best, ambiguous about whether the small business would comply with the solicitation.

Continue reading →