Tag Archives: GSA Schedule

It’s Over: GAO Waves White Flag On Aldevra SDVOSB Cases

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

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 →

GAO Sustains An Aldevra Protest (Again)

Posted on by

The original Rocky was popular with audiences and critics alike, rating as the highest-grossing film of 1976 and picking up three Oscars, including Best Picture.  But by the time the franchise reached Rocky V in 1990, the ongoing sequels had become something of a joke.  In a Washington Post review, critic Desson Howe opened with: “Moments after that brutal bout with Dolph Lundgren in “Rocky IV” — and you did watch “Rocky IV,” didn’t you? — Sly Stallone mistakes his wife for his dead boxing coach. This is not a good sign, even for the Rockster.”

Like the Rocky series, the fight between Aldevra and the VA keeps spawning sequels.  For service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, the good news is that Aldevra has won yet another GAO bid protest, challenging the VA’s refusal to consider a SDVOSB set-aside before procuring equipment from the GSA Schedule.  The bad news is that the sequels keep coming, with no sign that the VA will back down.

Continue reading →

Here We Go Again: Another Aldevra-Style GAO Protest Sustained–Is a Court Resolution Looming?

Posted on by

Kids love repetition.  Even though my daughter isn’t 10 months old yet, some of her favorite games involve doing the same thing over and over.  For instance, she throws a toy.  I pick it up and give it back to her.  She throws it again.  And so on.  She finds this hilarious, whereas I find the whole thing funny just because she’s so adorable (I admit to a bit of bias).

Repetition is also the name of the game in the GAO’s standoff with the VA over the VA’s refusal to set-aside procurements for SDVOSBs before procuring goods and services under the Federal Supply Schedule.  The GAO recently sustained yet another bid protest, holding that the VA had improperly awarded a contract to a non-SDVOSB, even though 20 or more SDVOSBs were capable of doing the work.  But before long, the showdown between the GAO and the VA may end, because one SDVOSB seems to have taken the matter to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which–unlike the GAO–has the power to compel the VA to put “Veterans First.”

Continue reading →

The Aldevra Saga Continues–and the GAO Throws the VA Some Lifelines

Posted on by

The VA has gotten beaten up pretty badly at the GAO lately.  The governmental watchdog agency continues to sustain protests (the most notable being filed by a company named Aldevra) on the basis that the VA’s practice of obtaining goods and services on the Federal Supply Schedule without first determining whether the procurements can be set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or veteran-owned small businesses is illegal.

However, in a recent bid protest decision regarding the same issue, the GAO ruled in the VA’s favor—and its ruling could bring an end to the Aldevra saga (an end many SDVOSBs and VOSBs are likely to find very unsatisfactory), if the VA accepts the GAO’s lifeline.

Continue reading →

Is it Groundhog Day? Aldevra Strikes Again

Posted on by

In the kitschy but rather enjoyable 1993 movie Groundhog Day, a still young-looking Bill Murray plays a weatherman who finds himself repeating the same day over and over.  For those following the battle between Aldevra, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (and others in Aldevra’s corner), and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a Groundhog Day-style repetition seems to have emerged.

First, the VA issues an unrestricted solicitation under the Federal Supply Schedule.  Second, Aldevra (or someone else), files a bid protest with the GAO, alleging that the VA’s use of the FSS violates its “Veterans First” obligations.  Third, the GAO sustains the protest.  And fourth, the VA keeps on doing it.

So here’s another Aldevra protest–any guesses what happens next?

Continue reading →

GAO: For VA, SDVOSB Set-Asides Trump GSA Schedule Buys

Posted on by

“Veterans First” really means “Veterans First,” even if the VA would prefer to conduct an unrestricted procurement under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule rather than conducting market research to see if the procurement can be set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.  So said that GAO in an important bid protest decision for SDVO small businesses, Aldevra, B-405271 (Oct. 11, 2011).

In Aldevra, the VA attempted to purchase certain supplies for a VA Medical center through the GSA Schedule on an unrestricted basis.  Aldevra, a SDVOSB, filed a protest with the GAO, arguing that before using the GSA Schedule, the VA should have conducted market research to determine whether two or more offers would be received from eligible SDVOSBs, and if so, should have set-aside the competition for SDVOSBs.

Continue reading →