In a case that ought to make 8(a) participants sit up and take notice, an 8(a) company was terminated from the 8(a) program for failing to obtain the SBA’s prior approval of its teaming agreement for an 8(a) contract–and the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld the termination.
Author Archives: Steven Koprince
VA CVE Reconsideration: A Primer for SDVOSBs
The VA CVE reconsideration process is an important component of the VA’s SDVOSB verification program–especially in light of news earlier this year that the VA’s Center for Veterans Enterprise is rejecting 60% of new SDVOSB verification applications.
For many companies, SDVOSB verification hinges on a successful VA CVE reconsideration request, but VA CVE reconsideration is often misunderstood. After working with many SDVOSBs to successfully obtain verification through the VA CVE reconsideration process, I have compiled this list of common “Q&As” regarding SDVOSB reconsideration.
SBA OHA: 21.2% Minority Owner Controlled Contractor
A minority owner with a mere 21.2% stake in a government contractor controlled that contractor for SBA size and affiliation purposes, according to a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision.
SBA OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of Civitas Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5424 (2012) is an important reminder that a contractor’s single largest minority shareholder may be deemed to control the company under the SBA size and affiliation rules–even if the contractor’s governing documents do not grant that shareholder actual legal control.
Contractor Improperly Downgraded for Lack of Agency-Specific Experience, Says GAO
A contractor bidding on a U.S. Department of State contract was improperly downgraded for failing to possess direct experience working with DOS, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
The GAO’s decision in Exelis Systems Corporation, B-407111; B-407111.2; B-407111.3; B-407111.4 (Nov. 13, 2012) is notable because it is not unusual for procuring agencies to consider agency-specific experience as part of a past performance and/or experience evaluation. According to Exelis Systems Corporation, such considerations may be deemed improper, unless they are spelled out in (or can be reasonably inferred from) the solicitation.
It’s Over: GAO Waves White Flag On Aldevra SDVOSB Cases
Well, that was fast.
A little more than two weeks after the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the VA need not consider service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-asides before procuring goods and services using the Federal Supply Schedule, the GAO has ended its long-running dispute with the VA over the same issue.
The GAO’s decision, in a case also involving Kingdomware Technologies, puts a sudden end to a series of GAO cases (known by many as the Aldevra cases) holding that the VA has been acting contrary to the law by failing to consider SDVOSB set-asides before using the Schedule.
A New Addition To The SmallGovCon Family
SmallGovCon will be on a short hiatus while Anne and I welcome Ryan Christopher Koprince to our family.
Ryan was born at 4:07 this afternoon. At birth, Ryan was 7 pounds, 15 ounces–a beautiful and healthy baby boy.
Ryan and his mother are resting comfortably. Ryan’s proud and happy father will return to his usual mix of GAO, SBA and other government contracting blogging in the near future.
AbilityOne Program: Court Shoots Down “Arbitrary and Capricious” Contract Award
The AbilityOne Program cannot be used to award a contract when it is questionable whether the contractor will comply with the requirement that significant portions of the work be performed by the severely disabled, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In Systems Application & Technologies, Inc., No. 12-526C (2012), Judge Eric Bruggink, in an opinion brimming with colorful quotes, shot down the Army’s effort to award a contract involving significant degrees of physical labor at a remote location to an erstwhile AbilityOne participant, holding that the prospective awardee had not come close to demonstrating that the work would (or could) be performed by the severely disabled.
For contractors concerned that the AbilityOne program may be subject to misuse, the Systems Application case is confirmation both that questionable practices occur in AbilityOne contracting, and that such practices will not be tolerated by the Court.