For an invoice to be considered a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, thereby giving the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the government’s failure to pay, the contractor must establish that the invoice was in dispute at the time it was submitted to the government.
As demonstrated in a recent Court decision, ordinary, undisputed invoices are not “claims” under the Contract Disputes Act.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the SBA’s SDVOSB determinations.
In a recent case, the Court held that it had the power to review a decision issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, in which OHA deemed a company ineligible to receive a SDVOSB set-side contract.
An incumbent contractor performing VA CVE SDVOSB verification functions was ineligible to be be re-awarded an order for those services because of an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld the VA’s decision to cancel the award to the incumbent contractor and exclude that contractor from the follow-on order.
With winter weather descending on much of the country, it is all the more important for contractors to ensure that their proposals are submitted with time to spare.
In a recent bid protest decision, the Court of Federal Claims held that extreme weather at an offeror’s location did not excuse the offeror’s failure to deliver a timely proposal because there was no interruption of “normal government processes” at the government location designated to receive proposals.
SDVOSBs—and basic fairness and common sense—were big winners in a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In its decision, the Court held that the VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation violated the law when it disqualified a SDVOSB, without giving the SDVOSB the opportunity to contest the reasons for the disqualification. In an opinion reminiscent of last year’s landmark Miles Construction case, the Court then held that the CVE’s substantive reasons for the disqualification were arbitrary and unreasonable.
Continue reading
The non-manufacturer rule applies only when a set-aside solicitation is designated with a manufacturing NAICS code, right? Not anymore.
A recent Court of Federal Claims case effectively invalidated SBA’s regulations that limit the application of the non-manufacturer rule to procurements for supplies. Instead, the Court held, the Small Business Act requires that the non-manufacturer rule apply any time that the Government buys manufactured products–regardless of the NAICS code assigned to the procurement.
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.