In a troubling case, the VA recently refused to issue a small business set-aside because responses to a Request for Information indicated that prospective small business offerors lacked similar experience with the VA, and did not currently have available the personnel, equipment and facilities necessary to perform the contract.
The GAO, ignoring the recommendation of the SBA, affirmed the VA’s decision to forego a small business set-aside.
A NAICS code appeal cannot be based on a sources sought notice, according to a recent NAICS appeal decision issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In NAICS Appeal of Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5406 (2012), SBA OHA held that under the FAR and SBA’s regulations, a viable NAICS code appeal cannot be filed until the solicitation itself is issued.
The SBA failed to properly evaluate the 8(a) Program application of a small business owned by a disabled individual, according to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
SBA OHA’s decision in Striker Electric, SBA No. BDPE-465 (2013) comes on the heels of a December 2012 case in which SBA OHA held that the SBA had improperly evaluated the 8(a) Program application of a woman-owned business. Together, the two decisions may suggest that SBA OHA is holding the SBA to a higher standard than may previously have been the case when it comes to the SBA’s evaluation of the “social disadvantage” factor. If so, it is good news indeed for 8(a) applicants.
The GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction typically does not extend to reviews of contract modifications.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, Cornische Aviation & Maintenance, LTD, B-405013.4 (Jan. 25, 2013), the GAO held that the protester’s allegations regarding a contract modification were not within the scope of the GAO’s bid protest function. The Cornische Aviation GAO bid protest decision demonstrates the GAO’s limited ability (or willingness, depending on one’s point of view) to decide bid protests involving contract modifications.
As has been well-documented by news outlets, the U.S. Postal Service plans to end Saturday delivery to save money. With the USPS facing financial and customer service struggles, it is little wonder that many government contractors rely on rival FedEx to deliver important packages.
But when it comes to filing a contract appeal with the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, contractors may want to think twice before calling FedEx. As one unfortunate contractor recently discovered, thanks to an arcane (and in my view, unfair) provision in the CBCA’s rules, a package sent through the USPS is deemed timely filed with the CBCA on the date of its postmark, whereas a package sent by any other means–including FedEx–is not considered filed until it is actually received at the CBCA’s office in Washington, DC.
Avoiding affiliation under the SBA’s ostensible subcontractor rule can be difficult, especially since the ostensible subcontractor rule itself, 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4), does not provide many examples of the factors that may cause ostensible subcontractor affiliation.
A recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, Size Appeal of InGenesis, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5436 (2013), demonstrates that even when a proposed subcontractor will play a major role in the procurement, ostensible subcontractor affiliation may be avoided if the parties carefully structure their relationship.
True or false: the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act requires the SBA to create a mentor-protege program for all small businesses?
Contrary to published information issued by at least three large law firms, the answer is “false.” In fact, although the NDAA authorizes the SBA to create a mentor-protege program for all small businesses, it does not require the SBA to create such a program.
Moreover, the erroneous statement that the NDAA requires the SBA to adopt a mentor-protege program for all small businesses is just one of three pieces of misinformation being circulated by one or more of these law firms. Let’s take a quick look at the text of Section 1641 of the NDAA itself and put the confusion to rest.