SmallGovCon Week In Review: February 29-March 4, 2016

Now that the calendar says March, I’m getting ready for March Madness.  The basketball excitement is building here in Lawrence, home of the #1 ranked Jayhawks.  Tomorrow, I’ll be at Allen Fieldhouse for the last home game of the season, and a farewell to senior standout Perry Ellis.

But don’t worry, I won’t let my excitement over March Madness deter me from bringing you our SmallGovCon Week In Review. This week’s collection of government contracts stories brings great news for WOSBs and EDWOSBs, an update on the abrupt cancellation of a major DHS contract, an effort to permit SDVOSBs to obtain disadvantaged status with the Department of Transportation, and much more.

Continue reading

Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: Management Alone Wasn’t Enough

The prime contractor’s management of a contract wasn’t enough to avoid ostensible subcontractor affiliation where the subcontractor would provide the labor, equipment, and facilities for performing the work.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that, where the subcontractor will provide the goods or services that the agency “actually seeks to acquire,” the subcontractor may be deemed an ostensible subcontractor under the SBA’s affiliation rules.

Continue reading

Vindai Corporation: Stealing Our SmallGovCon Posts

I suppose it was bound to happen to us, just like it happens to bloggers everywhere: someone is stealing our SmallGovCon blog posts and republishing them as their own, without our permission (and without any attribution).

I was very upset and angered to discover today that a company called Vindai Corporation is publishing all of our SmallGovCon posts on its own website.  Vindai not only lacks permission to republish our work, but is posting our work without any author attributions–which makes it look as though Vindai itself has authored all of these SmallGovCon posts.  Whoever is responsible for Vindai’s website is either very negligent or very sleazy.  Or maybe both.

I have demanded that Vindai immediately remove our work from its website.  In the meantime, Vindai, if you’re reading this (and I’m sure you are, since you’ve been busy stealing the rest of our posts): you have my express permission to republish this post only on your website.  I’m sure your readers will find it informative.

ASBCA: No Valid Subcontractor Claim Against Government

I sometimes suggest that a government subcontract include a so-called “pass-through” dispute resolution provision, in which the prime contractor agrees to sponsor its subcontractor’s claims against the government.  A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals case demonstrates why pass-through provisions can be so important.

In its decision, the ASBCA held that a subcontractor lacked a valid claim against the government–and therefore, had no ability to pursue relief at the ASBCA.

Continue reading

Kingdomware Supreme Court Oral Argument: Listen For Yourself

Last week, I offered my take on the February 22, 2016 oral argument in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States.  Now you can listen for yourself.

The Supreme Court has posted an audio recording of the hearing, as well as the transcript.  To listen to the audio or read the transcript, just follow this link.

SmallGovCon Week In Review: February 22-26, 2016

It was a busy week for me in Washington, DC.  The highlight was attending oral arguments in Kingdomware Technologies v. United States on Monday.  Although I was supposed to head back to Lawrence Wednesday night, a bout of severe weather led to the cancellation of my flight–and two extra unscheduled nights in DC.

Now that I’m finally back here in Lawrence, it’s time for our weekly dose of government contracting news.  In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, SAM problems lead to a pre-award protest, an uphill battle for women-owned businesses seeking federal contracts, the “worst website in government” is getting an upgrade and much more.

Continue reading

Expired 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Agreement Sinks JV’s Eligibility

An 8(a) mentor-protégé agreement, which expired one year after its approval by the SBA, did not protect the 8(a) protégé and its mentor from affiliation–and meant that their 8(a) mentor-protégé joint venture was an ineligible large business.

A recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals is a cautionary tale for 8(a) protégé and their mentors, and highlights the importance of securing timely SBA reauthorization of 8(a) mentor-protégé agreements.

Continue reading