An 8(a) protege and its mentor were not affiliated with one another, despite forming eight joint ventures over a four-year period–and winning 15 contracts with those joint ventures.
In a recent size appeal case, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld the decision of the SBA Area Office, which found that the mentor and protege were not affiliated despite their substantial history of joint venturing.
The GAO’s jurisdiction over task order protests turns on whether the award price of the task order exceeds $10 million–not whether the protester’s proposed price exceeds $10 million.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that it lacked jurisdiction over a task order protest because the award price was under $10 million, even though the protester had proposed a price of approximately $11.4 million.
Compliance with the limitations on subcontracting are not adequately being monitored by the contracting officers responsible for 8(a) contracts, according to a recent GAO report.
After reviewing a representative sample of ten 8(a) contracts, the GAO determined that contracting officers effectively monitored subcontracting limit compliance on two of those contracts. In other cases, agency contracting officers failed to effectively monitor compliance, even in situations presenting a heightened risk of potential violations–such as where ineligible incumbents were serving as subcontractors.
I am back in Lawrence after a trip to the Washington area, where I spoke at the National HUBZone Conference. My conference presentation focused on the special rules for joint venturing and teaming on HUBZone set-aside contracts.
Thank you to Mark Crowley and the HUBZone Council for inviting me to be a part of this year’s National HUBZone Conference. Thank you also to the clients, old friends, and new connections who made the conference especially worthwhile. And thank you, too, to all those who attended my seminar and asked so many great questions.
After speaking at four government contracts conferences since August, I am beginning to feel a bit like a road warrior. My next conference travels will take me to Wichita, Philadelphia, and New Mexico. If we haven’t connected at an event yet this year, I hope to see you there.
An offeror was not entitled to hold itself out as having a Federal Supply Schedule contract by virtue of its relationship with an affiliated company that held the FSS contract.
In a recent bid protest decision, the Court of Federal Claims held that a FSS award was improper where the awardee’s affiliate–but not the awardee itself–held the proper FSS contract.
A procuring agency reasonably required all members of a SDVOSB set-aside GSA Contractor Team Arrangement to possess a certain Federal Supply Schedule contract and Special Item Number.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that restricting CTAs to holders of a certain Schedule and SIN was appropriate because all of the supplies to be procured fell within the identified Schedule and SIN.
The co-owner of a Missouri construction company faces the likelihood of 51 months in jail after pleading guilty to SDVOSB fraud charges.
According to a Department of Justice Press release, Michael Parker admitted that he and his father, Warren Parker, falsely claimed that Warren was a service-disabled veteran in order to receive more than $7 million in SDVOSB contracts.