Author Archives: Steven Koprince

The Aldevra Saga Continues–and the GAO Throws the VA Some Lifelines

Posted on by

The VA has gotten beaten up pretty badly at the GAO lately.  The governmental watchdog agency continues to sustain protests (the most notable being filed by a company named Aldevra) on the basis that the VA’s practice of obtaining goods and services on the Federal Supply Schedule without first determining whether the procurements can be set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or veteran-owned small businesses is illegal.

However, in a recent bid protest decision regarding the same issue, the GAO ruled in the VA’s favor—and its ruling could bring an end to the Aldevra saga (an end many SDVOSBs and VOSBs are likely to find very unsatisfactory), if the VA accepts the GAO’s lifeline.

Continue reading →

Is it Groundhog Day? Aldevra Strikes Again

Posted on by

In the kitschy but rather enjoyable 1993 movie Groundhog Day, a still young-looking Bill Murray plays a weatherman who finds himself repeating the same day over and over.  For those following the battle between Aldevra, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (and others in Aldevra’s corner), and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a Groundhog Day-style repetition seems to have emerged.

First, the VA issues an unrestricted solicitation under the Federal Supply Schedule.  Second, Aldevra (or someone else), files a bid protest with the GAO, alleging that the VA’s use of the FSS violates its “Veterans First” obligations.  Third, the GAO sustains the protest.  And fourth, the VA keeps on doing it.

So here’s another Aldevra protest–any guesses what happens next?

Continue reading →

Beware of Boilerplate: Unnecessary Certification Sinks Bid

Posted on by

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.  When 4Granite, Inc. submitted a bid in response to a Corps of Engineers IFB, 4Granite included a document not required by the government, titled “Company Information and F.A.R. and D.F.A.R. compliance statements.”  In the compliance statement, 4Granite pledged to comply with the clause at FAR 52.212-1 and the clauses at FAR 52.212-3 through 5.

The problem?  Those clauses weren’t in the IFB.

Continue reading →

GAO: Agencies Cannot Ignore SBA OHA’s NAICS Code Designations

Posted on by

My daughter isn’t even eight months old yet, but she has developed a case of selective hearing.  If she’s doing something she shouldn’t (like tugging on the blinds), and I tell her to stop, she often pretends not to hear and keeps right on going.  By the time she’s two, she’ll probably be sticking her fingers in her ears and chanting, “la la la, I can’t hear you,” when she doesn’t want to acknowledge me.

Selective hearing isn’t limited to children.  In one case, the Department of Veterans Affairs ignored the SBA’s designation of a new NAICS code for the solicitation.  But, like my daughter, the VA didn’t get away with it for long.

Continue reading →

It Takes Two: GAO Sustains Set-Aside Protest

Posted on by

It Takes Two is the name of a 1995 film starring Kirstie Alley, Steve Guttenberg, and the Olsen twins.  With such a star-studded cast, I’m at a loss for why the film merits only a 5.1 rating from the harsh critics at IMDb.  I am far too busy to investigate this apparent injustice by screening the film myself.  However, “it takes two” is worth keeping in mind, because it sums up one of the most important rules for small government contractors.

Under the FAR, agencies are typically required to set-aside procurements exceeding $150,000 for small businesses if there is a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible small businesses will submit offers at fair market prices.  When an agency fails to conduct adequate market research to determine whether the “rule of two” can be met, the GAO will sustain a bid protest, as was the case in DNO Inc., B-406256, B-406256.2 (Mar. 22, 2012).

Continue reading →

SDVOSBs: Beware of Loans From Minority Owners

Posted on by

When I was in fifth grade, I had to go door-to-door selling candy bars to raise money for a class field trip.  I worked up the courage to peddle assorted chocolates to most of the neighbors, but avoided houses with those ominous “BEWARE OF DOG” signs.  I was selling snacks; I didn’t want to become a snack myself for some large canine.

For service-disabled veteran-owned small business owners, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has recently hung up its own ominous sign: “BEWARE OF LOANS,” at least when they come from non-service-disabled minority owners.  In SDVOSB Appeal of Rush-Link One Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-228 (2012), the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals found that loan arrangements between a service-disabled veteran and the company’s minority owners abrogated the service-disabled veteran owner’s control over the company.

Continue reading →

SDVOSB Joint Ventures: JV Agreement Must Name Program Manager

Posted on by

In Romeo and Juliet, the heroine famously muses “What’s in a name?”  Juliet’s point, as your junior high English teacher probably emphasized, is that the young lovers’ family names should not define them.  If Juliet had her way, names would be meaningless.

Tell that to the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.  (How’s that for a segue?)  SBA OHA has held that when it comes to service-disabled veteran-owned small business joint ventures, the parties must include the specific name of the SDVOSB employee who will serve as the project manager.  Without a name, the SDVOSB joint venture is invalid.

Continue reading →