Tag Archives: Court of Federal Claims decisions

SDVOSBs Lose Aldevra Battle With VA, Says Federal Court

Posted on by

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).”

Continue reading →

Breaking: Federal Court Sides With VA, Overturns Aldevra Decisions

Posted on by

VetLikeMe, a publication advocating for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, is reporting tonight that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of the VA in a decision essentially overturning the GAO’s Aldevra line of cases.

The court’s decision, issued by Judge Nancy Firestone, has not yet appeared on the Court of Federal Claims’ website, but I have seen a copy of the ruling and can confirm VetLikeMe’s report.

In the decision, Judge Firestone holds that the VA need not consider a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses before procuring supplies or services under the Federal Supply Schedule.  Judge Firestone’s ruling essentially reverses more than a year’s worth of GAO decisions holding that the VA had violated the law by using FSS procedures without first considering SDVOSB set-asides.

More tomorrow on this crushing legal blow to SDVOSBs.

Federal Court Upholds Agency’s 40% Small Business Subcontracting Goal

Posted on by

The United States Court of Federal Claims has denied a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration’s establishment of a 40% small business subcontracting goal–measured by total contract price, not total subcontracting dollars.

In Firstline Transportation Security v. The United States, No,. 12-601C (2012), Judge Thomas Wheeler  rejected arguments that the TSA’s 40% small business subcontracting goal was unreasonable, contrary to the FAR, and improperly established a partial small business set-aside.

Continue reading →

GSA e-Buy “Purges” May Be Improper, Says Federal Court

Posted on by

The GSA e-Buy website may have improperly failed to preserve critical solicitation records, according to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In Laboratory Corp. of America v. United States, No. 12-622C (2012), the court has asked the government to explain why it should not face sanctions for so-called “spoliation” of evidence, arising from the inability to access archived e-Buy materials.  The court also suggested that the procuring agency might have used e-Buy to improperly attempt to modify a solicitation without issuing a formal amendment.

Continue reading →

Teaming Agreements and Proprietary Information: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Are you taking adequate steps to protect your proprietary and confidential information from misuse by teammates?

If your teaming agreement or non-disclosure agreement requires you to mark proprietary information with a “protected” legend, the answer may be “no.”  Although many standard teaming agreements and non-disclosure agreements require protective legends in order to protect confidential information, contractors sometimes fail to apply the appropriate legend.  And when that happens, at least according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the contractor may have no basis to complain that the teammate stole its confidential information.

Continue reading →