Category Archives: Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses

SDVOSB Program: VA Must Pay Attorneys’ Fees in Ownership Transfer Case

Posted on by

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ordered the VA to pay attorneys’ fees to Miles Construction, LLC stemming from the Court’s February decision that the company’s  “right of first refusal” provision did not render it ineligible for the VA’s SDVOSB program.

In ordering the VA to pay attorneys’ fees, the Court held that the VA’s defense of its broad interpretation of “unconditional ownership” was not substantially justified–but also suggested that the Court might not reach the same result under the SBA’s SDVOSB rules.

Continue reading →

GAO: SDVOSB Improperly Downgraded For Not Identifying Its Subcontractors

Posted on by

A SDVOSB was improperly downgraded for not identifying its subcontractors in its proposal, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.

In Coburn Contractors, LLC, B-408279.2 (Sept. 30, 2013), the GAO held that the VA improperly applied an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring that the protester identify its subcontractors, because according to the solicitation, a subcontractor list was only required at the task order level.

Continue reading →

Service-Disabled Veteran “Controlled” SDVOSB With 79% Ownership, Says SBA OHA

Posted on by

A service-disabled veteran, who owned 80% of this business and served as its highest officer, “controlled” the company within the meaning of the SBA’s SDVOSB regulations, according to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

SBA OHA’s commonsense decision overturned an earlier SBA determination that the veteran’s majority ownership and officer position did not amount to “control.”

Continue reading →

SDVOSBs: Say Goodbye to the “Center for Veterans Enterprise”

Posted on by

The “Center for Veterans Enterprise” is no more.  Technically speaking, anyway.

Tucked away in today’s interim final rule on SDVOSB protests and appeals is a notation that the VA CVE has renamed itself the “Center for Verification and Evaluation.”  According to the rule, the purpose of the new name is to “more accurately reflect the mission of this office which is to determine the status of SDVOSBs and VOSBs with respect to VA’s SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside acquisition program established by 38 U.S.C. 8127.”

As a practical matter, the name change will have no effect on SDVOSBs and VOSBs.  But perhaps in connection with other positive developments this year–most notably, the pre-determination findings program–the “new” VA CVE will begin to improve its standing with frustrated veterans.

VA SDVOSB Protests: New Rule Allows Appeals

Posted on by

The VA SDVOSB protest process has been criticized by some (including a certain Kansas-based government contracts attorney) for failing to offer a right of appeal.  Under the VA’s rules, if a protested company was found to be ineligible as a SDVOSB, its only option was to sue the VA in federal court–an expensive and time-consuming proposition.

Until now.

Today, the VA published an interim final rule, under which a protested SDVOSB has the right to an appeal within the VA.  The new system isn’t perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Continue reading →

SmallGovCon Week in Review: September 16-20, 2013

Posted on by

In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, the American Legion asks an appellate court to overturn the infamous Kingdomware SDVOSB decision, the Office of Management and Budget prepares for a potential government shutdown, a blogger writes that despite new rules, small subcontractors may be mistreated by large primes, and much more.

Continue reading →

8(a) Program: OHA Judge Slams SBA For Claim It Cannot Play DVDs

Posted on by

The SBA’s claim that it could not access information provided by an 8(a) program applicant in DVD format was “not credible,” according to a recent 8(a) program appeal ruling issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

In Sunrise Staffing, SBA No. BDPE-499 (2013), the SBA OHA–in an unusually sharply-worded opinion–rejected the SBA’s excuses for not reviewing relevant information provided by the 8(a) program applicant, and granted the applicant’s 8(a) appeal.

Continue reading →