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.
It sounds like a tale from Bizarro World: under a recent Department of Homeland Security solicitation, a small business received a “Neutral” score for the small business participation factor, while its large competitor was awarded a “Good” score for the same factor.
One might think that the GAO would sustain a bid protest, especially because the small business in question planned to self-perform nearly two-thirds of the contract work. Think again. The GAO denied the protest, holding that under the solicitation, offerors could only receive small business participation credit for subcontracting to small businesses, not for self-performing at the prime contract level.
An 8(a) company failed to satisfy a solicitation’s experience and key personnel requirements, but the 8(a) company walked away with a $23.9 million contract anyway–thanks to the SBA.
The GAO’s bid protest decision in Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., B-407563, B-407563.3, B-407563.4 (Jan. 14, 2013) demonstrates the power of the SBA under its certificate of competency program to second-guess procuring agencies’ determinations with respect to corporate experience, the resumes of key personnel, and other responsibility matters.
The government was not required to exercise option years in a “long term” contract to lease aircraft, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In Sundowner 102 LLC v. United States, No. 12-304C (2013), the Court held that the use of the words “long term” in a contract did not limit the government’s discretion to decline to exercise option years.
As I have previously written, the GAO lacks authority to hear bid protests of task orders valued at less than $10 million, except if the protester can show that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract against which the order was issued.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the “scope” exception applies only if the task order changes the underlying scope of work–denying the protester’s argument that any task order that is not evaluated in accordance with the contract’s requirements necessarily goes beyond the contract’s scope.
A construction company with cash flow problems did not make payments on its SBA loan–and was terminated from the 8(a) program as a result.
The decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in C.J. Hearne Construction Co., SBA No. BDP-449 (2012) is an important reminder that unpaid debts to Uncle Sam can be the kiss of death for 8(a) program participation.
A director does not “control” a company under the SBA affiliation rules when that director can be removed at any time by the majority shareholder, according to a recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In Size Appeal of Environmental Quality Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5429 (2012), SBA OHA arrived at the commonsense conclusion that when a majority shareholder has unfettered discretion to fire a company’s directors, the majority shareholder–not the directors–control the company for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules.