Tag Archives: SDVOSB set-asides

SBA Finalizes Rule Allowing Set-Asides Under Small Business MACs

Posted on by

The SBA has published a final rule that would allow for quite the change to small business set-aside multiple award contracts (MACs) and orders issued under them. This final rule amends the SBA’s regulations to authorize task and delivery orders issued under a small business set-aside MAC, to be set-aside for HUBZone businesses, 8(a) businesses, SDVOSBs, or WOSBs.

While agencies had set aside orders under MACs before, SBA has now clarified its regulations to allow socioeconomic set-asides of orders under small business set-aside MACs.

Continue reading →

GAO: VA Rule of Two Doesn’t Apply if Pricing Isn’t Reasonable

Posted on by

GAO recently gave its blessing to a VA decision not to follow the Rule of Two, despite knowing several SDVOSBs would bid. The VA’s decision was based on the contracting officer’s opinion that prices would not be fair and reasonable based on an evaluation of prices and market research.

The decision is important for providing some clarification on what research a contracting officer must undertake to establish that prices will not be fair and reasonable for purposes of the Rule of Two.

Continue reading →

Alert! House Committee Proposes Ending SDVOSB Self-Certification

Posted on by

SmallGovCon readers know that the federal government currently operates two SDVOSB socio-economic designations: a VA-specific program (that requires the business to be verified by the VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation), and a program through the SBA (that allows the business to self-certify).

These dual programs have been the source of confusion among SDVOSBs. Thankfully, relief might be on the way, as the House Small Business Committee has introduced legislation to consolidate SDVOSB verification under the SBA.

Continue reading →

Federal Circuit Affirms SDVOSB Priority Over AbilityOne

Posted on by

Ever since the Supreme Court’s Kingdomware decision was handed down in 2016, an important question has remained: who has priority at the VA for items on the AbilityOne List?

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals provided the answer. The VA is required to prioritize service-disabled veteran-owned or veteran-owned small businesses when the Rule of Two is met, even when it buys items on the AbilityOne List.

Continue reading →

New Consolidated SDVOSB Eligibility Requirements: the Good, the Bad, and the Downright Ugly

Posted on by

New, consolidated SDVOSB eligibility regulations kicked in on October 1.  The new regulations replace the old VA and SBA rules, which provided separate eligibility standards for SDVOSBs.

Veterans have long been confused by the fact that the Government operated two separate SDVOSB programs, each with its own standards.  The consolidated rule will eliminate that confusion, and that’s a very good thing.  There are also several other pieces of the new SDVOSB eligibility rule that veterans should like–but also some that aren’t so great, or that require further clarification as to how they’ll be applied.

We provided a broader overview of the new regulations earlier last week.  Now it’s time for me to get on my soapbox.  Without further ado, here’s my list of the good, bad, and the downright ugly from the new SDVOSB regulations.

Continue reading →

VetBiz Verification Not Required For Non-VA SDVOSB Contracts, SBA OHA Reiterates

Posted on by

Despite a longstanding and very common misconception, the VA’s SDVOSB verification requirement doesn’t apply to non-VA SDVOSB contracts.

As the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals recently reiterated, it was “simply not correct” to believe that a company was required to be verified in VetBiz to be awarded a non-VA SDVOSB contract.

Continue reading →

VA SDVOSB Rule of Two: Court Provides Important Guidance for Protesters

Posted on by

A protester contending that the VA violated the “rule of two” by failing to set-aside a solicitation for SDVOSBs must present sufficient facts to indicate that the VA should have had a reasonable expectation of receiving two or more offers from SDVOSBs at fair and reasonable prices.

In a recent decision, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed a rule of two challenge because, according to the Court, the protester only identified one SDVOSB–itself–that was likely to submit an offer at a fair and reasonable price.

Continue reading →