A man who lied about being a service-disabled veteran–and received nearly $6 million in VA SDVOSB set-asides–will not spend a single day in jail.
According to a Department of Justice press release, the man in question, John Witty, was sentenced to a fine, probation, and community service. Yes, Witty’s wallet will be lighter, and maybe there were extenuating circumstances not evident from the press release–but the lack of jail time seems a tad generous.
In an important decision impacting many SDVOSB verification applicants, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has held that the VA’s SDVOSB regulations did not prevent a service-disabled veteran from controlling his company remotely.
In KWV, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-882C (2013), the Court held that a veteran could control his Rhode Island-based construction company by electronic means, even though the veteran spent half of the year residing in Florida.
VA SDVOSB reconsideration requests were approved in 48% of cases resulting in a decision, according to a GAO report released on Monday.
In the lengthy report, which weighs in at 63 pages, the GAO broadly concludes that the VA CVE has made progress when it comes to the verification of SDVOSBs, but has a ways to go in order for the SDVOSB verification process to be quick, effecient and effective.
This broad conclusion is not in the least bit surprising to anyone who has followed the evolution of the VA SDVOSB verification program. However, the report is also packed with a great deal of interesting information about SDVOSB verification at the VA–including statistics on applications, reconsideration success rates, and more.
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.
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.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs properly limited its SDVOSB market research to firms located in the geographic area where the contract would be performed, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In an era in which many contractors bid on procurements nationally, the GAO’s rationale is debatable–but should serve as a reminder that SDVOSBs cannot take VA set-asides for granted, even when the VA does not use the Federal Supply Schedule.
As I briefly reported last night, in a crushing blow to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has overturned the GAO’s Aldevra decisions.
Judge Nancy Firestone, ruling in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. The United States, No. 12-173C (Nov. 27, 2012), held that the VA reasonably interpreted the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 as not requiring consideration of a SDVOSB set-aside before the VA procures goods and services under the Federal Supply Schedule. For SDVOSBs, the Kingdomware Technologies ruling means that the VA’s much-ballyhooed “Veterans First” acquisition policy means little more than “Veterans First (If We Feel Like It).”