Tag Archives: set-asides

DoD Suspends 8(a) Simulation Training Awards

Posted on by

The Department of Defense has apparently suspended all 8(a) contract awards under the Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Acquisition Center in the wake of a federal court decision issued earlier this month.

In a press release, leaders of the Native American Contractors Association and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce blasted the DoD for overreaching in response to Dynalantic Corporation v. United States, No. 95-2301 (2012), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the 8(a) Program as a general matter, but found that the 8(a) Program was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff’s specific industry, military simulation and training.

I’ll have much more on Dynatlantic and the fallout from the court’s decision after the Labor Day weekend.  Unfortunately, for 8(a) companies–especially those doing business with DoD– the holiday weekend begins on a very ominous note.

Agency Awards HUBZone Set-Aside to Federal Prison Industries

Posted on by

When is a HUBZone set-aside not really a HUBZone set-aside?  According to one GAO bid protest decision, when Federal Prison Industries (also known as UNICOR) submits an offer.

In Tennier Industries, Inc., B-403946.2 (June 29, 2012), the Defense Logistics Agency set-aside a procurement for HUBZone contractors, but awarded the contract to Federal Prison Industries rather than a HUBZone company.  One might think that the GAO would sustain a bid protest.  Instead, the GAO held that the award to FPI was A-OK.

Continue reading →

GAO: Agencies Must Consider SDVOSB Set-Asides Before Issuing Small Business Set-Aside RFPs

Posted on by

One day back when I was in fourth grade, my teacher informed our class that Thomas Jefferson had never been a United States president.  I marched to the back of the classroom, pulled out the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly proved that Mr. Jefferson had, in fact, served in our nation’s highest office, leading to a chorus of laughter among the fourth graders of Winship Elementary.  After all, it’s rather amusing to find out that the person in charge got it wrong.  (No wonder my teacher never liked me very much after that stunt).

In a recent GAO bid protest decision, both the procuring agency and the SBA initially got it wrong, too, by erroneously relying on outdated regulations to argue that the agency need not consider a SDVOSB set-aside before awarding a small business set-aside contract.  Fortunately for SDVOSBs, the GAO set matters straight.

Continue reading →

GAO Confirms: AbilityOne Trumps SDVOSB for VA Set-Asides

Posted on by

The VA has been on the receiving end of a number of GAO bid protest decisions, the most recent issued just a few weeks ago, holding that the VA is acting illegally by ordering off the Federal Supply Schedule without first determining whether the procurement at issue can be set-aside for service-disabled veteran owned small businesses.  But the GAO’s recommendations, and the outrage from the veteran community (which, in my opinion, is very well-deserved), have not stopped the VA from pushing ahead with its “FSS First” acquisition strategy.

Now, the VA has pushed SDVOSBs even further toward the back of the line.  The VA has determined that the Javits-Wagner-O’Day, or JWOD Act, which calls for agencies to make certain purchases from nonprofits listed by the Committee for Purchase for People who are Blind or Severely Disabled (also known as the “AbilityOne” program), trumps SDVOSB set-asides for items on the Committee’s list.

And this time, the VA agrees with the GAO.

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 →

GAO Protests: VA Awards Set-Aside to Self-Certified Large Company

Posted on by

“So, are you a small business?”  “Nope.”  “Great.  How would you like a small business set-aside contract?”  “Umm, sure, okay.”

The dialogue above is fictional (and its lack of quality demonstrates why I am a government contracts lawyer, not a Hollywood screenwriter), but it could have occurred in relation to a recent Department of Veterans Affairs procurement.  In that case, a company self-certified that it was not small.  Despite the certification, the VA awarded the company a small business set-aside contract.

Not surprisingly, the GAO had something to say about it.

Continue reading →

It Takes Two: GAO Sustains Set-Aside Protest

Posted on by

It Takes Two is the name of a 1995 film starring Kirstie Alley, Steve Guttenberg, and the Olsen twins.  With such a star-studded cast, I’m at a loss for why the film merits only a 5.1 rating from the harsh critics at IMDb.  I am far too busy to investigate this apparent injustice by screening the film myself.  However, “it takes two” is worth keeping in mind, because it sums up one of the most important rules for small government contractors.

Under the FAR, agencies are typically required to set-aside procurements exceeding $150,000 for small businesses if there is a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible small businesses will submit offers at fair market prices.  When an agency fails to conduct adequate market research to determine whether the “rule of two” can be met, the GAO will sustain a bid protest, as was the case in DNO Inc., B-406256, B-406256.2 (Mar. 22, 2012).

Continue reading →