In a troubling case, the VA recently refused to issue a small business set-aside because responses to a Request for Information indicated that prospective small business offerors lacked similar experience with the VA, and did not currently have available the personnel, equipment and facilities necessary to perform the contract.
The GAO, ignoring the recommendation of the SBA, affirmed the VA’s decision to forego a small business set-aside.
A man who lied about being a service-disabled veteran–and received nearly $6 million in VA SDVOSB set-asides–will not spend a single day in jail.
According to a Department of Justice press release, the man in question, John Witty, was sentenced to a fine, probation, and community service. Yes, Witty’s wallet will be lighter, and maybe there were extenuating circumstances not evident from the press release–but the lack of jail time seems a tad generous.
In an important decision impacting many SDVOSB verification applicants, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has held that the VA’s SDVOSB regulations did not prevent a service-disabled veteran from controlling his company remotely.
In KWV, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-882C (2013), the Court held that a veteran could control his Rhode Island-based construction company by electronic means, even though the veteran spent half of the year residing in Florida.
VA SDVOSB reconsideration requests were approved in 48% of cases resulting in a decision, according to a GAO report released on Monday.
In the lengthy report, which weighs in at 63 pages, the GAO broadly concludes that the VA CVE has made progress when it comes to the verification of SDVOSBs, but has a ways to go in order for the SDVOSB verification process to be quick, effecient and effective.
This broad conclusion is not in the least bit surprising to anyone who has followed the evolution of the VA SDVOSB verification program. However, the report is also packed with a great deal of interesting information about SDVOSB verification at the VA–including statistics on applications, reconsideration success rates, and more.
A procuring agency is not required to evaluate whether potential small business offerors possess the capabilities to meet all of the requirements of a solicitation before issuing the solicitation as a small business set-aside, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Swank Healthcare, B-407367 (Dec. 12, 2012), the GAO denied a large business’s bid protest, holding that the procuring agency had properly issued a small business set-aside without first considering whether the small businesses it had identified as likely offerors possessed the capabilities to meet all of the requirements of the solicitation.
The VA CVE reconsideration process is an important component of the VA’s SDVOSB verification program–especially in light of news earlier this year that the VA’s Center for Veterans Enterprise is rejecting 60% of new SDVOSB verification applications.
For many companies, SDVOSB verification hinges on a successful VA CVE reconsideration request, but VA CVE reconsideration is often misunderstood. After working with many SDVOSBs to successfully obtain verification through the VA CVE reconsideration process, I have compiled this list of common “Q&As” regarding SDVOSB reconsideration.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs properly limited its SDVOSB market research to firms located in the geographic area where the contract would be performed, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In an era in which many contractors bid on procurements nationally, the GAO’s rationale is debatable–but should serve as a reminder that SDVOSBs cannot take VA set-asides for granted, even when the VA does not use the Federal Supply Schedule.