Federal Construction Contracting Blog : Federal Construction Contracting Law Firm : Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC : Construction Law, Dredging and Claims

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

On May 13, 2013, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“the VA”) Office of Small Disadvantaged Business (“OSDBU”) published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, asking the public for guidance on how best to revise its verification regulations. Better late than never.

Since the verification program's inception, it has been hampered by issues and problems. The hope was that the verification process would address concerns regarding fraud, and create a system that assured that those attaining verified status were entitled to recognition. Instead, service-disabled veterans have been largely frustrated by the system. Well, if you are a service-disabled veteran with an opinion on how to make the system better, you are being given your chance to make your opinions known.

The recent announcement stated that the OSBDU plans to revise the regulations governing the VA’s veteran-owned small business (“VOSB”) and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (“SDVOSB”) programs in order to “provide greater clarity, to streamline the program, and to encourage more VOSBs to apply for verification.” The OSDBU is specifically seeking comment from the public on the following eight (8) topics:

1. What could be changed to improve the clarity of the regulations? Where might bright lines be drawn to more clearly indicate compliance with the regulations and reduce potential for misinterpretation? Where might the addition of bright line tests create unintended consequences?
    
2. It has been suggested that VA should develop a list that would clearly delineate what constitutes ownership and control and what constitutes lack of control or ownership. Should a list like this be included in the rule, and if so, what should be on the list?
    
3. Are there changes to VA's regulations that could be made to reduce the economic impact on VOSBs?
    
4. Are there changes to VA Form 0877 (the application) that could streamline the process?
    
5. What verification process improvements could help to increase efficiency and reduce burden for VOSBs?
    
6. What additional training tools or assistance might be offered to create more clarity for stakeholders and help them more efficiently and effectively navigate the verification regulations?
    
7. What documents, records, or other materials could the Office for the Center for Veterans Enterprise use to distinguish legitimate VOSBs/SDVOSBs from businesses that fraudulently seek contracts from the Government?
    
8. Would a special Hotline to report suspected ineligible VOSBs/SDVOSBs help the Government ensure that contracts are awarded to legitimate VOSBs/SDVOSBs.

Although the VA identified these eight topics for discussion, do not feel limited by this list. The OSDBU has emphasized that it is open to hearing any and all comments relating to the improvement of the process. As such, this is a rare opportunity to sound off in a very public way and make an impact on the processes that govern the verification program. We strongly urge you to make your voice heard!

Written comments should be submitted through www.Regulations.gov by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420. Comments can also be faxed to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AO63—VA Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Verification Guidelines.” The comment period ends on July 12, 2013.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle and Maria L. Panichelli

We’ve all heard about the “glass ceiling” experienced by women in the workplace. The term “glass ceiling” first appeared in an article published by the Wall Street Journal in 1986 and was used to describe the invisible barriers that women faced as they tried to climb the corporate ladder. While things seem to be better today than they once were, I think many would agree that barriers (in some cases substantial barriers) still exist. Certainly, the Small Business Administration agrees.

In October of 2010, after many years of delay, the SBA issued a Final Rule allowing for the implementation of its Women-Owned Small Business Program. The program was gradually introduced and, as originally constituted, was stricken with statutory caps that inhibited its intended effect. Ironically enough, for both Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSBs) set-aside contracts were subject to “ceilings.” For manufacturing contracts, the ceiling was $6.5 million; for any other contract the ceiling was $4 million. Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, however, these ceilings are about to disappear.

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, in accordance with directives set forth in the NDAA, the SBA issued an Interim Final Rule, removing the statutory cap on WOSB and EDWOSB set-aside contracts. As a result of this change, government agencies will now be able to set-aside contracts for WOSBs and EDWOSBs at any dollar level, providing WOSBs and EDWOSBs with access to much larger federal contracts. Hopefully, this change will also allow the federal government to better meet its statutory contracting goals for women-owned small businesses, which have been consistently missed.

Either way, the shattering of the WOSB “ceilings” promises to greatly increase the number of large-dollar WOSB and EDWOSB set-aside contracts. If you are a WOSB or EDWOSB, you will want to make sure that you are properly registered as soon as possible so that you can take advantage of these opportunities. We’ve posted the requirements in previous articles. For additional information on the SBA’s Women-Owned Small Business Program go to www.sba.gov/wosb.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Edward T. DeLisle and Maria Panichelli

Back in February, we provided readers with an overview of a case that we litigated at the end of last year, Miles Construction, LLC v. United States, No. 12-597C (Feb. 14, 2013). The major focal point of the decision was the court’s ruling that “a standard right of first refusal is a ‘normal commercial practice,’” which does not hinder an SDVOSB’s ability to comply with the VA’s “unconditional ownership” requirement. Before Miles, it was the VA’s position that a right of first refusal in an SDVOSB operating agreement prevented a veteran owner from “unconditionally owning” his or her company, rendering the company ineligible for verified status. So if, for example, you were a service-disabled veteran, who owned 51% of your company, but had in your operating agreement a provision that you were required to offer your minority shareholders the right to buy your shares at or above a price offered by a third party, you could not be verified by the VA. Sounds a little silly, right? Well, as set forth in Miles, the court thought it was silly as well.

This was a major victory for SDVOSBs, which ushered in a change in VA policy on transfer restrictions, generally. The VA has removed information from its website indicating that rights of first refusal, and other transfer restrictions, are impermissible barriers to verification. The VA has also publically acknowledged its about face on the issue. (See Testimony of Mr. Tom Leney, Executive Director of Veterans and Small Business Programs, March 19, 2013.) Despite all of the publicity on transfer restrictions, however, there are other aspects of the Miles decision that are just as disserving of discussion. The importance of due process is one of those issues.

In Miles, the Plaintiff, Miles Construction LLC, was a SDVOSB that had been previously verified by the VA. A few months after being verified, Miles submitted a bid on a VA solicitation set-aside for SDVOSB concerns. Miles was awarded the contract and a disappointed bidder filed an agency protest, challenging Miles’ eligibility. Specifically, the protestor alleged that Miles’ service-disabled veteran owner did not “unconditionally control” the company, as required by 38 C.F.R. § 74.4. Miles was notified of the protest and asked to “respond directly to the allegations made in the status protest.” Miles promptly responded and addressed each of the allegations. The VA accepted Miles’ position regarding each of the allegations lodged by the protesting party, yet sustained the protest anyway. Why? Not because of issues relating to “unconditional control,” but, rather, based upon an alleged failure of the service-disabled veteran to exhibit “unconditional ownership” over Miles, something never brought to Miles’ attention. Miles lost both the contract and its verified status based upon this decision.

Miles, of course, protested the decision. On the issue of process, Miles’ position was twofold. First, it argued that the VA violated 48 C.F.R. § 819.307 in rendering its decision. Under that regulation, the VA, through its Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) “shall decide protests on service-disabled veteran-owned small business status whether raised by the contracting officer or an offeror.”  It goes on to state that “[a]ll protests must be in writing and must state all specific grounds for the protest.” Miles’ interpretation of this regulation was that either a contracting officer or a disappointed offeror could advance an eligibility protest and that protest would have to be specific and in writing. The point is to provide the VA with something substantive to consider, which can then be read, understood and responded to by the person being protested. While the court deferred to OSDBU on the ability to look beyond information contained in a protest (despite the wording of the regulation), it had a problem with not providing the party being protested with notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Citing to the Administrative Procedures Act, the court stated that where an agency performs an investigatory function, as OSDBU did here, an interested party (like Miles) must be given notice of what’s happening such that he or she is permitted to meaningfully participate in the process. That did not happen. Miles was not given an opportunity to address the “unconditional ownership” issues that led to its immediate dismissal from the SDVOSB program. Simply put, you cannot do that. It’s a procedural due process problem, which Miles argued as part of its protest. You cannot issue what amounts to a death sentence without first allowing the accused a chance to defend herself. To that end, the court stated that “an interpretation of 48 C.F.R. § 819.307(c) that does not allow this basic procedural due process is plainly erroneous and cannot be upheld.”

Going forward, this ruling should mean less surprise and more process from the VA. This is a welcome change and another positive, yet less publicized, aspect of the Miles decision.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

Next week, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is giving SDVOSBs a rare opportunity to voice their concerns about government small business programs -- publicly, and directly to the SBA itself.

Yes, you read that correctly. The SBA recently announced that it will host a meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development (“the Task Force”). The Task Force has been charged with various responsibilities in connection with SDVOSB programs. Its most recent focus has been the coordination of administrative and regulatory activities, and the development of proposals, related to several focus areas: (1) access to training, counseling and capital; (2) effective federal contracting verification; and (3) improved federal support. The upcoming meeting is meant to address not only these topics, but also various issues relating to agency efforts to improve business development opportunities for SDVOSBs. Also on the agenda: A discussion about ways in which the government can better meet its small business contracting goals.

The SBA has stated that the meeting will be open to the public, and that time will be set aside for public comment and presentations. This meeting will give service-disabled veteran small business owners a chance to speak out publicly about issues of concern and, based upon our experience, there is plenty to talk about.

The meeting will be held on May 10, 2013, starting at 9 a.m. and running through noon. The meeting will be held at the SBA’s Washington, D.C. District Office, located at 740 15th St., NW, Suite 300. Those planning to attend should provide advance notice by emailing vetstaskforce@sba.gov.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

It’s not all that surprising when contactors question the Department of Veterans Affairs’ authority, especially those who are denied SDVOSB verification.  It’s a little surprising, however, when members of Congress do it.  Late last month, two congressmen explicitly challenged the VA’s management structure, which could have an impact on how the verification process operates in the future.
 

On March 28, 2013, Reps. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) and Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) penned a letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, arguing that the VA had violated the Small Business Act by allowing the director of the department's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), Tom Leney, to also serve as director of the VA’s Center for Veteran’s Affairs (“CVE”).  In theory, the CVE and the OSDBU are meant to carry out very different functions within the VA.  The CVE is charged with the verification of SDVOSB entities – a responsibility delegated to the CVE by the Secretary of the VA under 38 U.S.C. 8127.  In that role it is supposed to serve as an “auditor” for the agency; its job is to police the verification process.  The OSDBU, on the other hand, is meant to serve as an advocate for SDVOSB entities, facilitating their participation in the program.
 

In their letter, the Congressmen explained that Section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, which created the position of OSDBU for every federal agency, specifically requires that the director of the OSDBU “carry out exclusively the duties enumerated in this Act, and shall, while the Director, not hold any other title, position, or responsibility, except as necessary to carry out responsibilities under [Section 15].”  Given this definition, the Congressmen opined that Mr. Leney’s service as both the director of the OSBDU and head of the CVE presented a problem.  As they coined it, the dual role constitutes an “inherent conflict,” given “the advocacy role assigned to the OSDBU and the auditing function now associated with CVE."
 

This is not the first time this issue has been raised.  On March 19, 2013, Mr. Leney was questioned about his dual role during a joint subcommittee meeting.  At that hearing, Mr. Leney testified that he did not feel that he was in a position of conflict.  His explanation: “I personally do not have any issue with a conflict of interest because we are helping vets."  Apparently, members of the legislature were not convinced.  Congressmen Hanna (the chairman of the Small Business Committee's Contracting and Workforce Subcommittee) and Coffman (the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee) were certainly not swayed.  In their subsequent letter, they specifically directed VA Secretary Shinseki to document how the department intends to achieve compliance with the Small Business Act.  Implicit in such a direction, of course, is the idea that the current structure is not compliant and, therefore, illegal.
 

To date, VA officials have not commented on the letter, but it is generally assumed that the VA will have to formally respond at some point soon.
 

The VA does appear to have a problem here and the problem is not going away.  When two subcommittee chairmen send a letter to follow up on an issue raised during hearing, they are expecting an answer.  Whatever the response, the real issue for SDVOSBs, and prospective SDVOSBs, is what does it all mean for them?  I hope it means that the VA uses this as an opportunity to address some of the administrative issues at CVE that have generated so much frustration amongst veterans.  While most veterans understand and appreciate the need to “police” the verification system, I have heard way too many stories from veterans who feel victimized by that system.  We will keep our eye on this one as it could result in a real shake-up at the VA.      

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

In today’s world, it is not at all uncommon for employees, or even owners of companies, to “telecommute” or “work remotely” from time to time. It's one of the many great things that technological advancement has provided. In fact, many say that it's too easy to stay connected to the office, making it impossible ever really get away. As I walk down Market Street in Philadelphia every day, I see person after person glued to their phone, checking messages and responding to email incessantly (present company included). In fact, I'm on a flight to Phoenix at this very moment writing this article, which I will email to my assistant and have posted for all of you to read. It's incredibly easy to work from anywhere at any time. Until recently, however, the Veterans Administration did not subscribe to this theory. It interpreted its regulations to mean that a service-disabled veteran could not manage his or her business remotely. A few weeks ago, the Court of Federal Claims issued an opinion that changed all that. KWV, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-882C (2013) should provide much more flexibility to service-disabled veterans in our ever-changing world.

KWV involved a Rhode-Island based service-disabled veteran-owned business (“SDVOSB”) that was owned and managed by a Korean War veteran with more than thirty years of construction experience. KWV was awarded a contract set-aside for SDVOSBs by the VA, and drew an agency protest from a disgruntled competitor, Alares LLC (“Alares”). Alares challenged KWV’s SDVOSB status, arguing that the service-disabled veteran did not actually “control” the company within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 because he lived in Florida for part of the year. Alares claimed that the veteran's sons, both of whom worked for the company in Rhode Island, actually controlled the company.

The VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (“OSDBU”) agreed with Alares; it found that, because the service-disabled veteran resided in Florida for a portion of the year, he could not maintain sufficient control over the day-to-day management of KWV. The OSDBU therefore held that KWV was ineligible for the contract, and revoked KWV’s SDVOSB status, rendering it unable to bid on future SDVOSB set-aside contracts issued by the VA. KWV then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Federal Claims, seeking injunctive relief, and got it.

The Court found that the service-disabled veteran's decision to live in Florida for part of the year did not preclude him from “controlling” KWV within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 74.4. Judge Lettow (the same judge that presided over the Miles case, a case that we won on behalf of an SDVOSB, and wrote about last month) stressed that the veteran “employs various electronic means to keep track of the day-to-day business of KWV," which was revealed during the proceeding. The court concluded that this was an acceptable means of controlling KWV's operations, per the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 74.4.

Based upon this finding, the Court issued a preliminary injunction, setting aside the VA's decision to sustain the protest. The Court also ordered the VA to restore KWV’s SDVOSB eligibility.

This case represents a very important development for SDVOSB owners. The VA must now recognize that “control” under 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 is not dependent upon an owner’s physical presence at an office or site. Rather, service-disabled veterans can remotely manage the day-to-day affairs of their SDVOSBs, provided that they fulfill the other prerequisites regarding “control.” This is great news for SDVOSB owners, who, like many of us, must manage our affairs far from afar sometimes...even at 37,000 feet. 

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (“FAR Council”) is expected to finalize as many as nine regulations in the upcoming year. One of the most interesting of the proposed rules would require prime contractors to accelerate payments to small business contractors.

FAR council issued notice of this proposed rule on December 19, 2012. The proposed rule is the latest step toward implementing policies put in motion by the July 2012 “M-12-16” memo, issued by Jeff Zients, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). In that memo, OMB asked agency heads to accelerate payments to small business contractors, by, inter alia, encouraging prime contractors to promptly pay their small-business subcontractors. Following issuance of the M-12-16 memo, several agencies issued directives instructing their Contracting Officers to begin inserting a new clause into all contracts – a clause which requires prime contractors, upon receipt of accelerated payments from the government, to pay small business subcontractors on an accelerated timetable to the maximum extent practicable.

The proposed rule would compel ALL agencies to include this new prompt-payment language into any new solicitations and resultant contracts. In its current form, the proposed clause (as set forth in the notice) provides no specific guidance concerning the definition of “accelerated.”

The sad fact of the matter is that the proposed rule does not provide subcontractors any new rights under the Prompt Payment Act, nor does it affect the application of the interest provisions of the Prompt Payment Act. Under current Prompt Payment Act provisions, interest begins to run when an agency does not pay a contractor an amount due “by the required payment date.” This new accelerated payment policy will not change the “required payment date” for purposes of calculating the interest penalty. Nonetheless, if it goes into effect, the proposed rule would at least provide small businesses with the ability to demand accelerated payment if the appropriate circumstances present themselves.

Comments on the proposed rule were required by February 19, 2013. Stay tuned for updates.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

Since 2010, when the VA instituted its process to verify service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses, we have received call after call from companies that have been denied verification. Denial, of course, can have a devastating effect. Without receiving verified status, a company cannot qualify for contracts set-aside by the VA for SDVOSB companies. Many times, when we receive these calls and then review the basis for denial, all we can do is shake our collective heads in disbelief. A simple phone call would have very likely paved the way to verified status. Instead, the company is stuck with attempting to fix the problem through the reconsideration process, which is uncertain and never quick, and must consider the distinct possibility that it will have to wait six (6) months from a final decision to reapply. This has raised the ire of many a veteran. Well, for those veterans who have advocated for change, help appears to be around the corner.

On Tuesday afternoon, Business Wire reported that on May 1, 2013, the VA will begin providing SDVOSB applicants the opportunity to correct “minor deficiencies” found in their documentation prior to a denial being issued. The idea is to add an element of common sense to the process and avoid denying applicants who really do deserve verification. The new process will work as follows:

Firms determined to have problematic issues that are easily corrected will be contacted by the Center for Veterans Enterprise and informed of CVE’s preliminary findings. The applicant will then have 48 hours to respond, indicating a willingness to correct the issues and provide revised documentation addressing the preliminary findings. As part of this new process, the applicant will be referred to verification-assistance counselors to enhance the probability that any deficiencies are overcome.

This is great news for our veterans and it is our understanding that other changes may be in the works. As we hear about what the VA intends to introduce, we will pass along that information to you.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

We recently posted an article discussing changes to the limitations on subcontracting rules for small business federal contractors.  The changes were marshaled in by Congress as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA” or “the Act”), which actually includes a number of other changes affecting small business contractors.  Several of those changes are designed to assist women-owned small businesses (“WOSB”) and economically disadvantaged women-owned small businesses (“EDWOSB”) in securing more federal work.

The current Woman-Owned Federal Contract Program, which became effective on February 4, 2011 after being mired in political red tape for years, allows contracting officers to set aside contracts for certified WOSBs and EDWOSBs (see our previous blog post concerning how to get certified).  By statute, the federal government must attempt to steer five percent (5%) of all federal contracting dollars to WOSBs and EDWOSBs.  Under the current law, however, reaching this goal has been elusive.  This is, in part, due to the caps in place that govern set-aside contracts for women-owned businesses.  Manufacturing contracts in excess of $6.5 million, and any other contract exceeding $4 million, cannot be set-aside for WOSBs or EDWOSBs.  The NDAA removes this ceiling, allowing women-owned businesses greater access to federal contracts, and, hopefully, enabling the government to actually reach its 5% goal.

The NDAA also includes a provision requiring the SBA to further study and identify those industries in which WOSB and EDWOSBs are “underrepresented.”  Currently, eighty-three (83) NAICS codes have been recognized as those where women have been historically underrepresented.  Contracting officers are permitted to set aside contracts in industries falling within those classification codes, as long as that contract can be awarded at a fair and reasonable price, and the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that two or more WOSB or EDWOSBs will bid or submit offers.  The identification of additional industries should result in more contracts being set aside for women-owned concerns.

SBA Administrator Karen Mills, who will be stepping down very soon, described the potential benefits of these changes, explaining that women currently own approximately thirty percent (30%) of all small businesses, making women one of the fastest-growing sectors of business owners in the country.  As such, Mills said, “opening the door for women to compete for more federal contracts is a win-win.”  If you are a woman-owned, small business contractor and want these new changes to result in a “win” for you, check your eligibility, and get registered as soon as possible!

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

For many Veterans and Service-Disabled Veterans attempting to do business with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the hope outlined in the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (the “Act”) has largely been elusive.  The Act called for the VA to give “priority to [] small business concern[s] owned and controlled by veterans” when soliciting work.  As the program developed, it was left to the VA to devise a system to verify companies as veteran owned small businesses (“VOSBs”) and service-disabled veteran owned small businesses (“SDVOSBs”), the latter of which were to receive first priority in contracting opportunities with the VA.  The verification system that took root in 2010 has frustrated many a veteran, as it has prevented legitimate companies from obtaining verified status and resulted in many others to lose their status.  In an important decision published last week, which we argued, the Court of Federal Claims has attempted to right the ship.

Miles Construction, LLC v. United States, No. 12-597C (2013) involved a construction contract set aside for SDVOSBs.  Our client, Miles, a verified SDVOSB, was the prospective awardee.  A competitor protested the award, raising issues of control by the minority shareholder of Miles, a non-service disabled company.  While the VA decided that the issues raised by the protestor had no merit, it nonetheless upheld the protest following an independent review of Miles’ governing documents.  According to the VA, three provisions of Miles’ operating agreement violated the VA’s verification regulations.  The most important provision involved a “right of first refusal.” That provision required the service-disabled veteran to offer the minority shareholders of Miles the right to purchase the veteran’s shares prior to any sale.  The VA took the position that such a provision denied the service-disabled veteran unconditional ownership, a prerequisite to verification.  On that basis, not only did the VA sustain the protest, eliminating Miles from competition, but it also removed Miles from its verified list of SDVOSB companies.  Miles would not be eligible for any further contracts set aside for such concerns.  Following our challenge of this decision on behalf of Miles, the court saw it differently.

The court determined that the VA’s interpretation of its own regulations was arbitrary and capricious.  While the regulations did, in fact, require “unconditional ownership” by the service-disabled veteran, that requirement did not preclude standard “right of first refusal” language.  The court concluded that such provisions fall within the ambit of “normal commercial practice” and do “not affect the veteran’s unconditional ownership.”  Further, the court found that Miles was not provided with an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations that led to the VA sustaining the protest.  On this point, the court opined that “[a]n agency should not act without affording the entity whose award or projected award is protested with notice of an alleged defect and an opportunity to respond.”  Calling such a position lacking in “basic procedural due process,” the Court held that the VA’s decision to sustain the protest was “plainly erroneous.”

Miles is a major victory for veterans and service-disabled veterans, who have been stung by a lack of common sense and fair play at the hands of the very agency that is supposed to be there to assist them.  Many have questioned the VA’s position on “rights of first refusal,” including members of Congress.  Now, a court has ruled that such provisions in an SDVOSB’s operating agreement cannot, in and of themselves, prevent one from being verified by the VA.  The ruling makes practical sense and is certainly consistent with the governing regulations.  As the decision is extremely important to SDVOSBs, expect to see further comment from us in the days and weeks to come.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

On January 3, President Obama signed into law the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA” or “the Act”).   The Act seeks to change a number of acquisition provisions applicable to contractors doing business with the federal government.

One important change involves the limitation on subcontracting rules relating to small businesses.  The NDAA calls for changes to those rules when it comes to supply and service contracts.  Moreover, while the NDAA does not seek to change the current limitations on small business subcontracting in the construction context, its implementing regulations will add new provisions, applicable to all government contracts, which could make it easier for all small business contractors to issue subcontracts.

Under the NDAA, a small business contractor in the service context “may not expend on subcontractors more than 50 percent of the amount paid to the concern under the contract.”  The current rule, as set forth at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6(a)(1), provided that “the [small business] concern will perform at least 50 percent of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees.”  The key distinction is the modification of the way in which costs are calculated.  Currently, only personnel costs matter; 50% of the personnel costs must be borne by the small business prime.  Once the regulations implementing the NDAA are enacted, the rule will be modified to reflect “total cost."  Small business contractors will have to perform 50 percent of the total cost themselves.

Supply contracts will change in a similar manner.  Currently, a small business supplier to the government  must perform at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacturing its supplies or products, not including the cost of materials.  13 C.F.R. § 125.6(a)(2).  The new rule will provide that a small business contractor cannot expend more than 50 percent of the amount paid to it by the government (less the cost of materials).

The NDAA does not alter the limitations on subcontracting already in place for general or specialty construction.  A small business prime contractor will still be required to perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract with its own employees (not including the costs of materials) in the context of general construction. 13 C.F.R. § 125.6(a)(3).  In the case of specialty trade contractors, a small business prime must still perform at least 25 percent of the cost of the contract with its own employees (not including the costs of materials). 13 C.F.R. § 125.6(a)(4).  

Despite the above, the NDAA seeks to add an entirely new provision, applicable to all small business contracts, which may allow a small business construction contractor to exceed the regulatory subcontracting limits.  Apparently fearing that certain small contractors would be adversely affected by the new rules concerning self-performance, Congress included a provision pertaining to “similarly situated entities."  Under this provision, a small business prime contractor may be able to satisfy its own performance requirements through subcontracting if the subcontractor is, itself, a small company.  

This provision could cause big changes in the way small contractors do business.  Because the NDAA left the specific details concerning this provision to the SBA, much will depend on the specific nature of the implementing regulations, so stay tuned.  Those regulations should be in place later this year.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli
 
Yesterday, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) proposed certain size standard changes, which could expand the number of contractors eligible for “small” business status in relation to construction contracts under NAICS Code 23.

Specifically, the SBA issued a proposed rule that would increase the size standard associated with NAICS Code 237210 (which relates to contracts dealing with Land Subdivision) from seven million dollars in average annual receipts over three years to twenty-five million dollars. Similarly, the SBA proposed an increase in the size standard for NAICS Code 237990, relating to contracts involving Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities, from twenty million dollars to thirty million dollars.

The SBA explained that, if adopted, these size standard increases will expand the small business share of total receipts in all industries within NAICS Sector 23, dealing with the construction industry, from about 49.7 percent to 50 percent. The SBA further estimated that these changes would result in an additional 400 contractors being deemed eligible for “small” business set aside contacts under NAIC Codes 237210 and 237990. The SBA stated that these changes would benefit three primary groups: (1) Businesses that are above the current size standards, who may gain small business status under the proposed rule, enabling them to participate in federal small business assistance programs; (2) Growing small businesses that are close to exceeding the current size standards, who will be able to retain their small business status under the proposed higher size standards, thereby enabling them to continue their participation in the programs; and (3) Federal agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses from which to draw for their small business procurement programs.

Under the proposed rule, the remaining NAICS codes relating to the construction industry would retain their current size standards.

The SBA is accepting comments on the proposed rule through September 17, 2012.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

The recession (which really is not over, despite what the economists have to say), has led to greater emphasis by the federal government on assuring prompt payment to government contractors. In fact, on September 14, 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum 11-32, "Accelerating Payments to Small Business for Goods and Services.” That Memorandum established the Executive Branch policy “that, to the full extent permitted by law, agencies shall make their payments to small business contractors as soon as practicable, with the goal of making payments within 15 days" of receipt of relevant documents. In addition, a recent Memorandum (M 12-16) issued by the Office of Management and Budget, dated July 11, 2012, addresses the subject of “Providing Prompt Payment to Small Business Subcontractors,” and recognizes that accelerating payments to small business contractors would help those businesses by improving cash flow.

This 15-day payment policy is of no particular benefit to prime construction contractors who, pursuant to FAR 32.904(d)(i), are to receive payments in 14 days after the designated billing office receives a proper payment request, based on contracting officer approval of the estimated amount and value of work or services performed. Nor does it directly benefit construction subcontractors because the clause at FAR 52.232-27(c) obligates the prime contractor to pay the subcontractor for satisfactory performance under its subcontract not later than 7 days from receipt of payment from the government. The obvious prerequisite, of course, is that in order for subcontractors to receive prompt payment, the prime contractors they work for must also receive prompt payment from the government. In recognition of that fact, the Memorandum states “In particular, agencies should, to the full extent permitted by law, temporarily accelerate payments to all prime contractors, in order to allow them to provide prompt payments to small business subcontractors.”

Federal agencies should be reminded that the spirit and intent of this OMB “transitional” policy, which is only to be effective for one year, is that small businesses should receive payments as soon as possible. In reality, the most significant impediment to prompt payment is not the period between the approval of a proper invoice and the release of funds; it is the considerable time that often passes between the time that a contractor performs extra work, or requests payment, and the issuance of a change order or the approval of an invoice. Prompt payment requirements have often been thwarted by contracting officers who fail to negotiate change orders in a timely manner, fail to agree to reasonable prices in an attempt to strike a better bargain for the government, or who nitpick the contractor’s documentation and unreasonably declare that it is not “proper.” In order for OMB’s goal of accelerating payments to subcontractors to be achieved, contracting officers must also expedite the administrative approval process that precedes the approval of a proper invoice.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters including bid protests, claims and appeals, procurement issues, small business issues, and dispute resolution.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

Last year, after over a decade of discussion, the Small Business Administration (SBA) finally implemented a federal contracting program specifically designed to assist small businesses owned by women. This program authorizes contracting officers to set aside federal contracts for eligible WOSBs (woman-owned small businesses) and EDWOSBs (economically disadvantaged women-owned small businesses). As we previously discussed, this program became officially effective on February 4, 2011 and was scheduled for gradual implementation over a period of months. It was expected to assist federal agencies in achieving the previously existing statutory procurement goal of awarding five percent (5%) of federal contracting dollars to WOSBs.

A year after going into affect, it is clear that the program is off to a slow start. Only about 10,000 WOSBs have been self-certified via the WOSB Program Repository, though there are certainly many more businesses out there that meet the eligibility criteria. If you are one of those businesses, you could be missing out on huge opportunities. As such, it is important for you to determine whether you meet the eligibility criteria for participation in the program.

What are those criteria, you ask? As a threshold matter, the business must be considered “small” in its primary industry in accordance with SBA’s size standards for that industry. In addition, to be considered an eligible WOSB or EDWOSB, a firm must be at least 51% owned and controlled by one or more women, or economically disadvantaged women. 13 C.F.R. 127.200. “Ownership” must be direct; it cannot be through an affiliate or association with others. 13 C.F.R. 127.201. The SBA defines "control" as a situation where the business owner has long-term decision-making and the day-to-day, full-time management and administration responsibilities for business operations. 13 C.F.R. 127.202.

In order to avoid abuse of the program by companies not truly owned and controlled by women, the SBA has enacted additional safeguards. Specifically, the woman owners must have managerial experience of the extent and complexity needed to run the company. The woman manager need not have the technical expertise or possess a required license (if applicable), if she can demonstrate that she has ultimate managerial and supervisory control over those who possess the required licenses or technical expertise. However, the SBA has stated that if a man possesses the required license and has an equity interest in the firm, he may be found to control the concern. 13 C.F.R. 127.202.

For those businesses that meet the requirements above, the WOSB and EDWOSB programs offer huge advantages. Five percent of all federal spending is the procurement goal for WOSB/EDWOSBs, and there is also a five percent subcontracting goal to WOSBs. With only about 10,000 businesses out there registered to compete, your chances of securing a government contract are vastly improved if you and eligible and participate in the program. In addition, there is no term limit to the WOSB and EDWOSB programs, and mentor-protégé programs are available.

In short, if you meet the program requirements, you should get registered for participation in the program as soon as possible. In the alternative, if you are thinking of starting a business that might be eligible, don’t wait! The SBA has not set forth a minimum amount of time the firm must be in business; therefore, a woman may establish a business, meet the requirements, self-certify, and win a government contract under this program in a short period of time.

Once you have determined that your business is eligible, registration in the program is rather easy. First, in preparation for registration/certification, businesses should become familiar with the WOSB Program’s Compliance Guide. The next step is to register the business in the Central Contracting Registry (CCR) or in the System for Award Management (SAM) (the government’s new registration system previously discussed here), once it is implemented. Then, log onto the SBA’s General Login System (GLS), and access the WOSB Program repository. Upload/categorize all required documents (a complete list of required documents can be found in the WOSB Program’s Compliance Guide). Then, complete the applicable certification form(s) available on the SBA website and register the business’s status as either a WOSB or EDWOSB, through either the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), or SAM. Lastly, get out there and start bidding!

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

In a recent opinion, SDVOSB Appeal of Rush-Link One Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-228 (2012), the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) used two 8(a) program regulations, namely 13 C.F.R. § 124.106(g) and 13 C.F.R. § 124.3, to determine whether a joint-venture met the eligibility requirements for the Service-Disabled Veteran Owned (SDVO) Small Business Program. Specifically, the OHA found that the joint-venture was not eligible for participation in the program; certain loans from minority owners imposed impermissible restrictions on the service-disabled veteran/majority-owner’s ownership.

Rush-Link One Joint-Venture (“Rush-Link”) was a joint-venture between Link Contracting, Inc. (Link), which held a 51% interest in the joint-venture, and Rush Construction, Inc. (Rush). Following the award of a SDVO set-aside contract to Rush-Link, a competitor challenged the joint-venture’s eligibility for the SDVO program.

For a small business concern to qualify as an eligible SDVO, a service-disabled veteran must directly and unconditionally “own” at least 51% of the firm. 13 C.F.R. § 125.9. The service-disabled veteran also must “control” both the long-term decision-making and the day-today management of the firm. 13 C.F.R. § 125.10(a). For a joint-venture to be SDVO-eligible, the joint-venture agreement must contain a provision designating an SDVO participant as the managing venturer, and designating an employee of the managing venturer as the project manager. 13 C.F.R. § 125.15(b)(2)(ii).

Applying these provisions to Rush-Link, the SBA Director for Government Contracting (“DGC”) concluded that Mr. George A. Carpenter, the president and 55%-owner of Link, was a service-disabled veteran. However, he found that Carpenter did not “own” Link within the meaning of the SDVO Program regulations, based on the existence of several promissory notes that divested Carpenter of certain ownership rights. More specifically, the terms of these promissory notes – given to three minority-owners of Link in exchange for critical loans provided to the company – restricted Carpenter’s ability to transfer his interest or receive dividends or distributions. Therefore, in reliance upon 13 C.F.R. § 124.106(g), which states that a person “controls” a company if he or she “provides critical financing” to the company or exercises control “through loan arrangements,” the DGC concluded that Carpenter’s ownership was impermissibly restricted by the promissory notes. The DGC reached this conclusion, even though 13 C.F.R. § 124.106(g) is an 8(a) regulation intended to govern small-disadvantaged businesses, and is not part of the regulations governing the SDVO program.

On appeal, Link cited 13 C.F.R. § 124.3, another 8(a) regulation, for the proposition that “ordinary” loans following “normal commercial practices” should not be the basis for finding that a small business owner does not control his or her company. The OHA acknowledged this was correct, but concluded that the loans in question here were “commercially irregular” because the holders of the promissory notes were not banks or other commercial lenders, but minority owners of the company itself. Based on this conclusion, the OHA determined that the promissory notes impermissibly restricted Carpenter’s ownership, and that Link was therefore not an eligible SDVO business. The necessary result of such a finding was that the joint-venture between Link and Rush (which is not itself a SDVO business) was also ineligible for the SDVO program pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 125.15(b)(2)(ii).

Oddly, neither the DGC nor the OHA addressed the propriety of using 8(a) regulations to determine eligibility under the SDVO program. Therefore, going forward, participants in all the various SBA small business set-aside programs should be aware, not only that loans that result in restrictions on ownership rights might invalidate “ownership” for the purposes of eligibility, but also that regulations may be utilized and interpreted across programs to determine a business’ eligibility.

In addition to the above, SDVOSB Appeal of Rush-Link One Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-228 (2012) provided some interesting insights concerning how a company’s internal corporate structure might affect the “control” requirements relating to SDVO eligibility under 13 C.F.R. § 125.10(a). Stay tuned for an update on what an SDVO should and should not include in its corporate governance documents.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

Eight bills aimed at assisting small businesses won approval in the House of Representatives on May 18, 2012. The bills include not only the Government Efficiency Through Small Business Contracting Act, the Small Business Advocate Act, the Subcontracting Transparency and Reliability Act, the Small Business Opportunity Act, which we discussed previously, but also:

• the Building Better Business Partnerships Act (H.R. 3985), which would amend the Small Business Act with respect to mentor-protégée programs, and allow the Small Business Administration to oversee 13 current mentorship programs for small businesses;
   
• the Contractor Opportunity Protection Act (H.R. 4081), which would overhaul the appeals process for contract bundling;
   
• the Contracting Oversight for Small Business Jobs Act (H.R. 4206), which would amend the Small Business Act to provide for increased penalties for contracting fraud; and
   
• the Small Business Protection Act (H.R. 3987) which would revamp the SBA’s size standards, or the measure it uses to determine when a business is small.

Although these bills passed the House, the legislation’s fate remains uncertain; the measures are attached to a defense spending bill that President Obama has threatened to veto. We will continue to monitor the progress of these bills and report on any changes in the law.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

On March 7, 2012, a package comprised of six bills, (H.R. 3850--112th Congress: Government Efficiency through Small Business Contracting Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 3851--112th Congress: Small Business Advocate Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 3893--112th Congress: Subcontracting Transparency and Reliability Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 3980--112th Congress: Small Business Opportunity Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 4121--112th Congress: Early Stage Small Business Contracting Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 4118--112th Congress: Small Business Procurement Improvement Act of 2012 (2012)), each designed to increase the number of federal contract opportunities for small businesses, cleared the House of Representatives’ Small Business Committee.

The most notable of the bills is the Government Efficiency Through Small Business Contracting Act (H.R. 3850). It would raise the government’s business goals for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns, codified at section 15 (g) of the Small Business Act, from 23% to 25% of all prime contract awards per fiscal year. In addition, the bill proposes to increase the current goal of subcontracting to small business from 35.9% to 40% percent. Government-wide goals for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans (3%), qualified HUBZone small business concerns (3%), small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (5%), and small business concerns owned and controlled by women (5%) will remain the same. An amendment proposed by Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., would have raised the set-aside for economically and socially disadvantaged businesses from 5% to 7.5%, but it was withdrawn.

The Small Business Advocate Act (H.R. 3851) elevates agency Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization offices both in terms of salary and duties. Specifically, it amends the Small Business Act to require the Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (established in each federal agency having procurement powers) to be compensated at least at the GS-15 rate and allows such a position to be compensated up to a Senior Executive Service level. It also adds, as additional duties of each Director, the following:

(1) reviewing and advising on decisions to convert an activity performed by a small business to an activity performed by a federal employee;

(2) providing advice and comments on acquisition strategies, market research, and justifications related to small business;

(3) providing training to small businesses and contract specialists;

(4) carrying out exclusively the duties enumerated under the Act and, while Director, not holding any other title, position, or responsibility, except as necessary to carry out such duties; and

(5) reporting annually to the congressional small business committees on the provision of small business and contract specialist training.

Lastly, it amends the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 to require the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council to: (1) conduct reviews of each Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to determine compliance with Small Business Administration (SBA) requirements, (2) identify best practices for maximizing small business utilization in federal contracting, and (3) report annually to the small business committees on such reviews and best practices.

The Subcontracting Transparency and Reliability Act (H.R. 3893) would amend the Small Business Act to prohibit a small business receiving a guaranteed loan through the Small Business Administration from expending more on subcontractors than: (1) 50% of the loan amount received, in case of a contract for services other than construction; (2) 85%, in the case of a contract for general construction; (3) 75%, in case of a contract for construction by a special trade contractor; and (4) 50%, in the case of a contract for supplies (other than from a regular dealer in such supplies). This bill would require the small business, in case of a contract for supplies from a regular dealer, to supply the product of a domestic small business manufacturer or processor, unless the SBA grants a waiver. The Bill authorizes the SBA Administrator to: (1) modify the above percentage limits when necessary to reflect conventional industry practices; and (2) establish a subcontractor percentage limit for contracts not covered by (1) through (4), above, and provides penalties for violations of such limits.

Under the bill, each subcontracting plan submitted to federal agencies is required to contain assurances that the offeror or bidder will: (1) report on subcontracting activities throughout the life of the contract, and (2) cooperate with any study or survey required by the federal agency or the SBA to determine the extent of compliance with the subcontracting plan. The bill directs the Administrator to ensure that the federal subcontracting reporting system to which such reports are submitted is modified to notify the Administrator, the appropriate contracting officer, and the appropriate Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization if an entity fails to submit a required report. It also provides that a contractor’s failure to submit such a report constitutes a breach of contract for which appropriate action may be taken. If an agency procurement center or commercial market representative determines that a subcontracting plan fails to provide the maximum practicable opportunity for small businesses to participate, under the bill, such representative may delay acceptance of the plan for a 30-day period for plan alteration.

The bill also allows a federal agency to convert a function from performance by a small business to performance by a federal employee only if: (1) the agency has made publicly available the procedures for such a decision, and (2) the procedures require such decisions to be reviewed by the appropriate Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and procurement representative. (H.R. 3893--112th Congress: Subcontracting Transparency and Reliability Act of 2012. (2012).

The Small Business Opportunity Act (H.R. 3980), amends the Small Business Act to replace the position of “breakout procurement representative” within the Small Business Administration with the position of “procurement center representative.” Pursuant to the bill, such representatives must review any acquisition plan for a procurement requirement and make recommendations regarding procurement method determinations and acquisition plans. The bill would remove the requirement that these representatives review restrictions on competition, instead requiring them to review barriers to small business participation in federal contracting, as well as any bundled or consolidated solicitation or contract. The representatives must: (1) have electronic access to any acquisition plan developed or in development with respect to a procurement activity, (2) be an advocate for the maximum practicable utilization of small businesses in federal contracting, and (3) be notified of and included in all applicable acquisition planning processes.

The bill directs the Defense Acquisition University and the Federal Acquisition Institute to each provide a course on contracting requirements under the Small Business Act, and requires each federal department or agency having contracting authority to: (1) enumerate opportunities for participation by small businesses during all acquisition planning processes and in all acquisition plans, and (2) invite the participation of the appropriate Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and procurement representatives in such planning processes and provide Director and representative access to all acquisition plans in development.

The Early Stage Small Business Contracting Act (H.R. 4121) would amend the Small Business Act to direct the Administrator of the Small Business to establish and carry out a program to provide increased access to federal contract opportunities for early stage small businesses (a business with no more than 15 employees and average annual receipts of no more than $1 million). The bill requires the Administrator to identify appropriate federal procurement contracts for award under the program and allows a contracting officer to award: (1) a sole source contract under the program if an entity is determined to be a responsible contractor and the officer does not reasonably expect that two or more early stage businesses will submit offers, and (2) contracts on the basis of competition restricted to early stage businesses if the officer reasonably expects that at least two early stage businesses will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair market price. It requires all program contract awards to be counted toward goals for small business participation in federal procurement contracts.

Small Business Procurement Improvement Act (H.R. 4118) would amend the Small Business Act to provide for increased small business participation in multiple award contracts, and for other purposes. Specifically, the bill would add to section 15(g) of the Small Business Act a requirement that the President shall establish “government-wide goals for the total dollar value of all task orders and delivery orders placed against multiple award contracts, blanket purchase agreements, and basic ordering agreements awarded to small business concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by service disabled veterans, qualified HUB-Zone small business concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and small business concerns owned and controlled by women.”

What does all this mean? Based upon the bi-partisan nature of the support for these bills, it means that there is agreement across the aisle that small businesses are deemed an important factor in the country’s economic recovery. Expanding the government’s goals for small, and small disadvantaged, businesses, for example, will assist in steering federal dollars to those who may not have otherwise had access to those dollars. Small companies benefitting from the receipt of federal contracts will hire employees and buy goods and services to support those contracts. Large businesses will, and certainly should, play a role in the legislative process as the bills wind their way out of committee. We will follow the progress of each bill and report back with any findings.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.  Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 By: Edward T. DeLisle

On January 18, 2012, Representative Bill Owens (D.-N.Y.) introduced a bill entitled, “The Small Business Growth and Federal Accountability Act” (H.R. 3779).  The Act is designed to “hold accountable Federal departments and agencies that fail to meet goals relating to the participation of small business concerns.” In order to achieve this goal, the Act goes on to state that “[if] a Federal department of agency does not meet a covered goal with respect to a fiscal year, that department or agency, in the succeeding fiscal year, may not expend for the procurement of goods or services an amount that is greater than 90 percent of the amount expended for the procurement of goods or services…”

If enacted, the bill would essentially penalize a federal department or agency by slashing its budget by 10% if that department or agency fails to hit its established small business procurement goals. As it currently stands, federal departments and agencies are required to expend 23% of their annual procurement dollars on small business awards. The problem, however, is that there is no penalty if an agency fails to meet this goal. If this bill becomes law that would certainly change. The question becomes: How would federal agencies react to it? The bill does state that “[t]o meet a covered goal, the head of a Federal department or agency may give preference to a small business concern when procuring goods or services.” While it does not define the type of preference that may be given, this concept opens the door to any number of possibilities that could impact the procurement process. For example, will a system emerge during the bill review process that is akin to the 10% price preference currently in existence for the HUBZone program?  We will simply have to wait and see.  The bill is currently being reviewed by the House Small Business Committee.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On Thursday, January 12, 2012, the Small Business Administration issued an interim final rule, which alters the protest procedures pertaining to its Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program. The changes serve two primary functions. First, when the SBA implemented the WOSB program by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register on October 7, 2010, it established set-aside thresholds of $5 million for contracts pertaining to manufacturing and $3 million for all other contracts. As part of the new interim rule, those thresholds have increased to $6.5 million and $4 million, respectively, to account for inflation.

Second, the changes ushered in as part of the interim rule, make the protest procedures for the WOSB Program consistent with the SBA’s other set-aside programs. For example, under the procedures that existed before issuance of the interim rule, if a contracting officer received a protest on a WOSB set-aside and, nonetheless wished to make an award, that contracting officer would have to issue a written determination concluding that doing so was required to prevent significant harm to the public interest. This requirement is inconsistent with the procedure outlined for other programs. Under the interim rule, a contracting officer may issue an award, despite a protest, if he or she makes the simple determination that doing so is necessary to protect the public interest.

As there have been few reported protests involving the WOSB Program, the new rules should not cause wide-spread confusion. If you are considering a protest, however, you are encouraged to read the changes and consult with a legal professional if you have any questions.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

Over the last several years, the scrutiny over federal small business programs has grown. That scrutiny has led to changes in policy and legislation designed to curb potential fraud in the procurement process. Because these changes have been implemented in such a short period of time, however, it is not unusual for the government to issue solicitations for small business set-aside contracts that are confusing, or even contradictory. In Commandeer Construction Company, Inc., B-405771, December 29, 2011, that is precisely what occurred resulting in a successful protest.

Commandeer Construction involved a solicitation that was set aside for Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), a program that has experienced much change in recent years. In 2006, the VA was given the authority to restrict competition to SDVOSBs as part of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Act (the "Act"). 38 U.S.C. 8127(d). As the GAO explained in Commandeer Construction, pursuant to the Act, an SDVOSB set-aside contract may only be issued to entities listed in a database of veteran-owned small businesses maintained by the VA. The VA has chosen to use what it has termed its "Vendor Information Pages" ("VIP"), which can be found at www.vetbiz.gov, as its official listing of veteran-owned and service-disabled, veteran-owned concerns.

Subsequent to issuance of the Act, the VA issued VAAR 804.1102, which states that all VOSB and SDVOSB entities must be listed in its VIP database by January 1, 2012 in order to be eligible for set-aside contracts for such entities. By December 31, 2011, all VOSB and SDVOSB entities must not only be listed, but must also be "verified," in order to receive new contract awards under the Veteran's First program, a program operated exclusively by the VA. While firms were once permitted to self-certify their status as VOSBs and SDVOSBs, as part of Veterans Benefits Act of 2010, the VA instituted a more rigorous qualification process. Consistent with this new review procedure, which was designed to weed out fraud, the VA's "Center for Veterans Enterprise" ("CVE") was given the authority to render eligibility determinations for these programs. If a firm wished to obtain a set-aside contract as a VOSB or a SDVOSB entity, it would have to be verified by CVE.

In an effort to assist in the transition from a self-certifying system to one requiring government approval, the VA issued what it called its "Memorandum from VA Acting Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement Policy, Systems Oversight and Accompanying Class Deviation from VA Acquisition Regulation" (the "Memorandum"). The Memorandum referenced what the VA described as a "class deviation." Based upon this class deviation, any "apparently successful offeror" that had not already been verified by CVE, could become verified on an expedited basis, and obtain an award of a VOSB or SDVOSB set-aside contract, provided CVE approved its status. Later, the VA clarified its position regarding who may qualify for a “class deviation,” taking the position that a company was not eligible for “either award or Fast Track Verification," unless it was visible in the VA’s VIP database. Commandeer Construction addressed the interplay between the class deviation identified in the Memorandum and the VA’s attempt to subsequently clarify what it meant.

In Commandeer Construction, the VA issued an IFB for a construction contract that was set aside for eligible SDVOSB firms. The solicitation stated that the award would be made to an SDVOSB firm that had “been verified for ownership and control and [was] so listed in the [VIP] database.” The IFB also included the “class deviation” language referenced above. What was not included as part of the IFB, however, was the Memorandum (and accompanying deviation), or the clarification made to the deviation, which was issued after the fact.

On August 8, 2011, the protesting party, Commandeer Construction, submitted an application to the CVE for approval as an SDVOSB. Thereafter, on August 30, 2011, Commandeer submitted its bid. As its bid was the lowest of those submitted, Commandeer was in line for an award. As it was not listed in the VIP database, however, the contract specialist for the VA intended to contact Commandeer for purposes of explaining the process of obtaining expedited verification.

Prior to contacting Commandeer, the VA contract specialist apparently learned of the clarification for the first time and discussed its meaning and significance with other VA officials. Based upon these discussions, the VA contract specialist decided that Commandeer was ineligible for award and informed it of such by letter dated August 31, 2011. At the time, CVE had not rendered a final decision on Commandeer’s SDVOSB eligibility.

Commandeer protested VA’s decision, taking the position that rejecting its bid was improper based upon the expedited review procedures outlined in the solicitation. The VA countered that the deviation clause, upon which Commandeer relied for potential eligibility, was never meant to apply to entities that were absent from the VIP database. According to the VA, the deviation clause was merely an effort to provide assistance to those firms that had already self-certified, but had not yet been CVE verified under the new review procedures. Commandeer Construction at 4.

The GAO based its decision on a strict reading of the solicitation. The deviation clause in the solicitation specifically stated that “the apparent successful offeror” would be given an opportunity to have its SDVOSB status reviewed on an expedited basis, if it was not “currently listed as verified” in the VIP database. While the VA may not have intended for the deviation to apply to firms not already listed in its VIP database, the GAO concluded that the solicitation itself did not provide that qualification. As such, Commandeer’s understanding that it could qualify for award pursuant to the expedited review procedure was reasonable. Based upon this finding, the GAO recommended that the VA complete its review of Commandeer’s verification documents and, if found to be eligible for SDVOSB status, award it the contract.

As the government continues to alter its approach in exercising control over small business programs, mistakes, such as those in Commandeer Contracting, will happen. Contractors must exercise care in reviewing and responding to any solicitation. If, during the course of the review process, an ambiguity is discovered, bring it to the attention of the contract specialist, contracting officer, or source selection authority immediately. Doing so will benefit all bidders and quite possibly prevent a pre-bid protest. For those ambiguities that are not readily detectible, and are only revealed at the time of contract award, be prepared to discuss your concerns with an attorney familiar with such issues right away, as a protest is likely your only source of recourse. For those participating in the government’s various small business programs, the fast-paced nature of regulatory change has opened these programs up to issues such as those presented in Commandeer Contracting. Bid and beware.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, introduced a bipartisan bill on Thursday that is designed to combat fraud and abuse in the world of small business contracting. As we have reported, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a number of reports over the last several years detailing the existence of fraud in the HUBZone, Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and 8(a) programs. These reports have generated much discussion about the need to revamp the system and, in certain circumstances, talk has led to action. The implementation of the current SDVOSB verification system is but one example of the government’s response to the current state of affairs. S. 633, entitled the “Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011” (Fraud Prevention Act), is designed to take the government’s ability to respond to fraud and abuse in small business contracting to a new level.

As reported by Law360, the Fraud Prevention Act contains three key provisions:

     1. It calls for the development of an oversight structure within the Small Business Administration (SBA) that would allow for better enforcement of the rules governing small business contracting;

     2. It would allow for an increase in criminal prosecutions, suspensions and debarments for those who violate the rules; and

     3. It would require the SBA to issue annual reports to Congress regarding those who are suspended, debarred or referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

S. 633 is yet another step to close the loopholes that have developed in the federal government’s small business contracting system. We will track this legislation and report any further developments.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

For those who regularly read our blog, you know that we have followed the government’s recent concern about fraud and abuse in the federal procurement process.  The GAO has issued reports that recite such abuse relative to the 8(a), HUBZone and SDVOSB programs.  As those reports indicate, companies have been awarded set-aside contracts through those programs, but were not qualified to receive them.  In certain circumstances, the apparent fraud was so blatant that the hubris, which certainly existed to think such abuses would go unnoticed, puts Charlie Sheen to shame.  Yet, as the GAO reports state, even when the abuses were uncovered, many of these contractors continued to receive government awards.  It appears that some contractors performing work overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan may also be receiving awards that they do not deserve.

As reported by Govexec.com, government agencies responsible for overseas contracts are not properly recording past performance history in the CPAR and PPIR electronic databases.  The biggest offenders appear to be the State Department, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  Based upon information supplied to the Commission on Wartime Contracting, congressionally mandated to investigate overseas contracting activities, these agencies have failed to properly report past performance history in up to 90% of the contingency contracts they have issued.  While the failure to report this information is problematic for many reasons, it certainly exposes the government to contractors who are less than ideal for important government contracts.  This is especially an issue as it relates to contractors in line for suspension or debarment.  As former Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays, who is the chairman of the Commission, stated: “[I]f suspensions and debarments are impeded by bureaucratic decisions or inertia, then companies that have committed fraud may continue receiving taxpayer funds.  In either case, untrustworthy contractors can continue profiting from government work, responsible businesses may be denied opportunities, and costs to taxpayers can climb.”

Over the years, the government has increasingly relied upon “best value” procurement to let contracts.  Past performance is almost always an important factor in determining “best value.” In fact, in most cases, it is the most important factor.  If federal agencies intend to continue issuing contracts in this fashion, a practice that is highly questionable for the purchase of certain services, such as construction, then they must make it a point to create a system that allows those deserving of awards to receive them. In the case of small business set aside contracts, the government has started to slowly move in this direction.  The VA, for example, is now vetting those contractors on its on-line SDVOSB registry to verify eligibility.  If this function is performed correctly, it will greatly enhance the probability that contracts will be let to those who deserve them. With respect to past performance history, there is a system in place.  Federal agencies simply need to use it.  Hopefully, the findings exposed by the Commission on Wartime Contracting make this a reality.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne and Edward T. DeLisle

The U.S. Small Business Administration published a package of final rules on February 11, 2011, that will revise the regulations of its 8(a) Business Development program to better ensure that the benefits flow to the intended recipients and help prevent waste, fraud and abuse. The rules were published in The Federal Register and will become effective on March 14, 2011.

The revisions are the first comprehensive overhaul of the 8(a) program in more than 10 years. The regulations incorporate technical, as well as substantive, changes that mirror legislation enacted since the last revision in June of 1998. The rules cover a variety of areas ranging from clarifications on determining economic disadvantage to requirements on Joint Ventures and the Mentor-Protégé program. Some of the components of the 8(a) program that the revised regulations will affect include:

Joint Ventures - The new rules require that the 8(a) firm must perform 40 percent of the work of each 8(a) joint venture contract that is awarded, including those awarded under a Mentor/Protégé agreement, to ensure that these companies are able to “build capacity.” In other words, the SBA has discarded the vague “significant portion” test in favor of a requirement for a protégé to perform 40 percent of the work performed by the joint venture partners.

Economic Disadvantage – The rules provide more clarification on factors that determine economic disadvantage as it relates to total assets, gross income, retirement accounts and a spouse of an 8(a) company owner when determining the owner’s ability to access capital and credit.

Mentor-Protégé Program – The rules add consequences for a mentor who does not provide assistance to its protégé, ranging from stop-work orders to debarment.

Ownership and Control Requirements – The rules provide flexibility on whether to admit 8(a) program companies owned by individuals with immediate family members who are owners of current and former 8(a) participants.

Tribally-Owned Firms – The rules require firms owned by tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, Native Hawaiian Organizations and Community Development Corporations to report benefits flowing back to their respective communities.

Excessive Withdrawals – The rules amend the regulations on what amount is considered excessive as a basis for termination or early graduation from the 8(a) program.

Business Size for Primary Industry – The rules require that a firm’s size status remain small for its primary industry code during its participation in the 8(a) program.

Other interesting changes include a revision to the prior practice of allowing a mentor-protégé joint venture to only submit bids or proposals on three solicitations in two years. Under the new regulations, instead of being limited to three bids or proposals over a two-year period, a mentor-protégé joint venture is limited to three contract awards. This is a far more reasonable way to limit participation. In addition, the new regulations also make it possible, with SBA approval, for joint venture partners who meet other small business requirements to form a second or a third joint venture, each with the ability to receive an additional three awards.

We will provide a more in-depth analysis of the new rules prior to the March 14, 2011 effective date and will also post a copy of the amended Code of Federal Regulations when it is published. The 8(a) program is a nine-year business development program for small businesses where the owner(s) fits the SBA’s criteria of being socially and economically disadvantaged and the same owners control the firm. The 8(a) program helps these firms develop their business and provides them with access to government contracting opportunities, allowing them to become solid competitors in the federal marketplace. It also provides specialized business training, counseling, marketing assistance and high-level executive development to its participants. In FY09, small businesses received $18.6 billion in 8(a) contract dollars.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters. Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group who represents contractors on a whole range of small business issues including teaming arrangements and compliance with the SBA’s rules and regulations.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

As of Friday, February 4, 2011, women-owned small businesses could begin taking steps to participate in a new federal contracting program just for them. The new Women-Owned Small Business ("WOSB") Federal Contract Program (the "Program") will be fully implemented over the next several months, with the first contracts expected to be let during the fourth quarter of this year.

The Program will provide greater access to federal contracting opportunities for WOSBs and economically-disadvantaged women-owned small businesses (EDWOSBs).  It allows contracting officers, for the first time, to set aside specific contracts for certified WOSBs and EDWOSBs, which will assist federal agencies in achieving the existing five percent statutory goal of federal contracting dollars for WOSBs.

Complete information and eligibility requirements of the Program are listed on the SBA website.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On December 22, 2010, the VA announced that it had selected the first twenty (20) mentor-protégé teams to participate in its newly minted Mentor-Protégé Program. The program is designed to assist firms that have already been verified as veteran-owned or service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses by the VA. Eligible firms are permitted to team with mentors, who are expected to provide developmental assistance to their protégé(s). In return for providing assistance to protégé firms, the VA has stated that mentors can expect “proposal evaluation consideration” with regard to proposals submitted on “best value” solicitations. Moreover, large business prime contractors serving as mentors can receive subcontracting plan credits in connection with a specific VA contract. Protégé firms are limited to one mentor at a time and can only participate in the program twice. There are no specific limitations such as this placed on mentor firms.

The VA expects to name five (5) more mentor-protégé teams this month. After this month, the next set of teams will be selected in August, 2011. For additional information on the program, interested contractors should review the VA’s Mentor-Protégé Program Guidebook.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

The SBA issued a press release yesterday regarding its new "Small Business Teaming Pilot Program", which was established as part of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. The program will involve "training, guidance, counseling, mentoring and procurement assistance to small businesses" that are interested in teaming arrangements on federal projects. The SBA expects to issue grants to various national organizations during the 2011 fiscal year, who will then work with the SBA and other governmental agencies in an effort to educate and assist interested companies. Organizations interested in obtaining grant monies through the program must submit applications to the SBA by no later than February 25, 2011.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

This week the Department of Veteran's Affairs announced that it will require all companies that wish to receive set-aside contracts as veteran-owned, or service-disabled, veteran-owned, businesses to verify their status. This announcement was made as part of the 2010 Veteran's Benefit Act and is geared toward eliminating fraud and abuse. As reported by Government Executive.com, last month the VA began contacting companies currently listed in its contractor database, VetBiz.gov, and informed them that that they had ninety (90) days to provide the VA with business documents proving eligibility to qualify for set-aside contracts issued by, or on behalf of, the VA. The measures currently being put in place have resulted, in part, due to a GAO report issued in November of 2009, which cited numerous instances of fraud and abuse in the system.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On October 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration issued a Final Rule allowing for the implementation of the long-awaited set-aside program for women-owned businesses. The program is designed to assist federal agencies in achieving the current 5% statutory goal for the award of contracts to such companies. Pursuant to the current version of the Rule, woman-owned businesses will not be required to identify instances of past discrimination to qualify for the program, but they will have to adhere to certain income and wealth restrictions, unless the industry they operate in qualifies as a "substantially underrepresented" industry. Construction contractors have not been identified as "substantially underrepresented" by SBA and, therefore, as currently constituted, the income and wealth restrictions will apply to the construction industry.

At this juncture, the Final Rule is in the midst of its 120 day implementation stage and is scheduled to go into effect on February 4, 2011.  At some point prior, the FAR Council will issue a new clause relative to this program. Moreover, keep an eye out for a few potential changes issued by members of the 112th U.S. Congress, which is being sworn in today. In one form or another, this change to the federal procurement landscape will occur in 2011.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Craig Schroeder

Last year, the United States Association of Veterans in Business ("USAVETBIZ") urged Congress for a government-wide preference in contracting and set-aside programs that extended the existing preference for service-disabled veteran owned small businesses ("SDVOSB") to all veteran-owned small businesses.  While that has not happened yet, the set aside program for SDVOSBs has been recently strengthened.

On October 7, 2010, the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") issued a decision interpreting the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, 38 U.S.C. sections 8127-8128 (Supp. III 2006) ("the Act") to require that, in certain circumstances, architect/engineer service contracts must be set aside by the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") for SDVOSBs.  In the Matter of Powerhouse Design Architects & Engineers, Ltd., Powerhouse, a Pittsburgh SDVOSB, protested the terms of eight Sources Sought Notices (SSN) issued by the VA for A/E services. Powerhouse asserted that the agency improperly failed to set aside these procurements for SDVOSB firms as required by the Act and its implementing regulations. The procurements were conducted pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Supp. III 2006), and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. Consistent with the Brooks Act, the agency publicized its need for A/E services on FedBizOpps. Powerhouse challenged the terms of the SSNs, which were issued on an unrestricted basis.

In sustaining the protest, the GAO analyzed the Act and its implementing regulations. It noted that the Act provides that ". . . a contracting officer of [the VA] shall award contracts on the basis of competition restricted to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that two or more small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price that offers best value to the United States." 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d). The GAO then went on to look at the regulations, which state that "the contracting officer shall set aside an acquisition for competition restricted to SDVOSB concerns upon a reasonable expectation that: (1) Offers will be received from two or more eligible SDVOSB concerns[4] and; (2) Award will be made at a reasonable price.”

The GAO found "nothing in the VA Act or the VA regulations that exempts A/E procurements from the set-aside requirement." It also found that the agency's defenses to application of the set aside requirement meritless. Accordingly, the GAO held that "the agency [should] determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that it would receive offers from two or more eligible SDVOSB concerns and award would be made at a reasonable price. For each requirement where there is such an expectation, we recommend that the VA solicit the requirement on the basis of a competition restricted to SDVOSB concerns." Powerhouse was awarded its costs for pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

While USAVETBIZ is still seeking a veteran-wide preference, the Powerhouse decision should be considered a victory for all veterans, service-disabled or otherwise.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.  Craig A. Schroeder is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group. 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On September 23, 2010, we wrote an article regarding the current status of the HUBZone priority fight between the GAO, the Court of Federal Claims and a number of federal agencies. That article followed another that we wrote on this issue on August 27, 2010. In a series of cases, the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims took the position that contracting officers were required to consider set-aside contracts for HUBZone entities, prior to considering set-asides for any other small or small, disadvantaged companies. In reaching this conclusion, the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims focused on the enabling legislation for the HUBZone program, which stated:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law…a contract opportunity shall be awarded pursuant to this section on the basis of competition restricted to qualified HUBZone small business concerns if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that not less than 2 qualified HUBZone small business concerns will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair market price.

Based upon this language, the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims took the position that contracting officers did not have any discretion in deciding whether to set-aside a contract for HUBZone entities. They had to do so, unless they could show that there were not at least two qualified HUBZone companies that would submit offers at a reasonable price. That has all changed.

On September 27, 2010, President Obama signed the 2010 Small Business Jobs Act. As part of the Act, the language of the HUBZone statute was changed. The legislation now states that “a contract opportunity may be awarded pursuant to this section”, eliminating the mandatory nature of the original version. Based upon this simple change, the HUBZone program has been placed on equal footing with all other small and small, disadvantaged business programs, including, but not limited to, those relating to Service-Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Businesses and 8(a) companies.

As we stated in our last article, it was not likely that Congress intended to establish a priority for HUBZone companies. The problem was borne out of sloppy drafting. That drafting problem has now been corrected. It will be interesting to see how this change impacts the HUBZone program in the months to come.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On August 27th, we posted an article regarding the recent Court of Federal Claims case, DGR Associates, Inc. v. United States. In that case, the protesting contractor took the position that the government agency, the Air Force, failed to follow the direction of Congress in determining how to set aside contracts for small and small, disadvantaged businesses. It proffered that the legislation which created the HUBZone program clearly gave HUBZone companies priority over other small and small, disadvantaged businesses. The statute reads in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law...a contract opportunity shall be awarded pursuant to this section on the basis of competition restricted to qualified HUBZone small business concerns if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that not less than 2 qualified HUBZone small business concerns will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair market price.

In agreeing with the GAO's position regarding this issue, the Court reached the following conclusion:

On the issue of statutory interpretation, the language of the Small Business Act granting priority to the HUBZone program could not be more clear. By using the phrases "notwithstanding any other provision of law...a contract opportunity shall be awarded on the basis of competition to qualified HUBZone small business concerns, "Congress established a priority for the HUBZone program over other competing small business programs.

The Court then proceeded to set forth the remedy associated with its finding:

By this decision, the Court enters a permanent injunction requiring the Air Force and the Small Business Administration to terminate the unlawful contract awarded to General Trades & Services, and to determine whether the criteria of 15 U.S.C. § 657a(b)(2)(B) are met, such that the contracting opportunity at issue must be set aside and awarded on the basis of restricted competition to a qualified HUBZone small business concern. Defendant is enjoined from awarding the contract in a manner that is inconsistent with this decision.

The Court could not have been clearer. The Air Force was required to assess whether the contract could have been set aside for HUBZone concerns. If the Air Force reached the conclusion that at least two HUBZone companies could perform the work at a fair price, then the contract had to be set aside for HUBZones. While at this point it is not clear what happened following the Court's decision, based upon two recent GAO decisions, it is obvious that the Air Force and at least one other government agency don't intend to follow the Court's directive in other cases.

Matter of: Rice Services, Inc. B-403746, issued by the GAO on September 16, 2010, involved a decision by the Air Force to set aside a contract for 8(a) small business concerns. The protester took the position that the contract should have been set aside for HUBZone companies. In response to the protest, the GAO asked the Air Force "whether it had acted in reliance on the DOJ Memorandum Opinion." In DGR Associates, Inc., the Air Force based its position on a memorandum issued by the Department of Justice, which concluded that the Small Business Act did not require HUBZone prioritization. The GAO, and then the Court of Federal Claims, disagreed with the DOJ's position. Nonetheless, in response to the GAO's question in the Rice Services matter, it is clear that the Air Force refused to budge:

[Consistent] with our prior position, the Air Force intends to follow the Memorandum Opinion issued by the Office of Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, concluding that there is no statutory requirement to prioritize the HUBZone small business program.

Undeterred, the GAO sustained the protest. Following the reasoning set forth in DGR Associates, Inc., the GAO stated that the language of the HUBZone statute clearly mandated that HUBZone's were to be given priority over other small and small, disadvantaged businesses. As a result, it issued a recommendation to the Air Force that it "undertake reasonable efforts to ascertain whether it will receive offers from at least two HUBZone concerns...at a fair market price."

In Matter of: Rice Services, Inc. B-402966.2, also issued by the GAO on September 16, 2010, the same protester made an identical challenge, this one involving the Defense Commissary Agency. The DCA attempted to set aside a contract for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses and, in doing so, took the same position as the Air Force, that is, that it could do so without first considering whether the contract should be set aside for HUBZone contractors. The DCA suffered the fate as the Air Force. The GAO sustained the protest.

The above illustrates the current tug-of-war between certain executive agencies, as well as the judicial branch, of our government. While one can guess as to what Congress may have intended when it established the HUBZone program, the language of the statute is clear. The Court of Federal Claims and the GAO had no choice but to rule as they did in the cases cited above. If Congress was simply sloppy in drafting the HUBZone program's enabling legislation, which was probably the case, then only Congress can fix the problem. It will be interesting to see how this battle plays out in the weeks and months to come.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On August 13th, the Court of Federal Claims temporarily ended a controversy regarding how agencies go about setting aside contracts for certain qualified small businesses. DGR Associates, Inc. v. United States involved a decision by the Air Force to issue a set aside contract for qualified 8(a) companies. The project involved housing maintenance, inspection services and repairs at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. The solicitation was challenged by a HUBZone contractor who claimed that the Air Force violated the Small Business Act by failing to give priority to HUBZone contractors. Specifically, the protesting contractor claimed that when the HUBZone program was established in 1997, the legislation required agencies to consider setting aside contracts for HUBZone contractors prior to considering any other small and/or disadvantaged companies for such contracts.

The enabling statute for the HUBZone program states the following:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law ... a contract opportunity shall be awarded pursuant to this section on the basis of competition restricted to qualified HUBZone small business concerns if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that not less than 2 qualified HUBZone small business concerns will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair market price.

Given this language, the protesting contractor took the position that Congress intended to give priority to HUBZones over other small and small, disadvantaged businesses, where government agencies make the decision to issue set aside contracts. The GAO agreed. In May of 2010, the GAO issued a recommendation to the Air Force that it follow clear Congressional authority and set aside the solicitation for HUBZone contractors, if further research suggested that two or more HUBZone contractors could perform the work at a reasonable price.  The Air Force refused to follow this recommendation, taking the position that Congress did not intend such a result. The protesting contractor then took action in the Court of Federal Claims.

Considering the same arguments made before the GAO, the Court of Federal Claims agreed with the conclusion reached in that forum. In rendering its decision, the Court stated as follows:

On the issue of statutory interpretation, the language of the Small Business Act granting priority to the HUBZone program could not be more clear. By using the phrases "notwithstanding any other provision of law ... a contract opportunity shall be awarded on the basis of competition to qualified HUBZone small business concerns," Congress established a priority for the HUBZone program over other competing small business programs.

The Court went on to state that "Congress must alone enact an appropriate amendment" if its intent was something other than to provide priority to HUBZones.

Based upon this decision, until such time as Congress acts, if a contracting officer is prepared to set aside a contract, he or she must determine whether two or more HUBZone contractors can perform the work for a fair price. If the answer to that query is "yes", then the contract must be set aside for HUBZone contractors to the detriment of other small and small, disadvantaged businesses. While one can reasonably expect Congress to take action at some point in the near future, in the short term this could mean more opportunities for HUBZone contractors.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Lori Wisniewski Azzara

On March 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration released a proposed rule that, if adopted, would significantly expand federal contracting opportunities for eligible women-owned small businesses (“WOSB”). The SBA conducted a study that identified 83 industries, based upon the NAICS code, in which WOSBs are either “underrepresented” or “substantially underrepresented.” Those industries include construction and design-related services, among others. The proposed rule allows for contracting officers to restrict competition to eligible WOSBs, thereby ensuring that they have an equal opportunity to participate in federal contracting opportunities. The proposed rule specifically authorizes the restriction of competition to WOSBs where the anticipated award does not exceed $5 million for manufacturing contracts and $3 million for all other contracts.

“Women-owned small businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of our economy, yet they continue to be under-represented when it comes to federal contracting,” said SBA Administrator Karen Mills. “Across the country, women are leading strong, innovative companies, and we know that securing federal contracts can be the opportunity that helps them take their business to the next level, expand their volume and create good-paying jobs. This proposed rule is a step forward in helping ensure greater access for women-owned small businesses in the federal marketplace.”

To be an eligible WOSB, a business must be 51% owned and controlled, as well as primarily managed, by one or more women. The business must also be “small” in its primary industry, consistent with the SBA’s size standards for that industry. A WOSB can be deemed “economically disadvantaged” as long as its women owners can demonstrate that their ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same or similar line of business. Several factors are considered when determining whether a woman is economically disadvantaged, such as her personal income, her personal net worth and the fair market value of all of her assets. The SBA does impose monetary limitations on these factors. For example, the SBA will presume that a woman is not economically disadvantaged if her adjusted gross yearly income, averaged over the two (2) years preceding certification, exceeds $200,000.00. Moreover, a woman’s personal net worth cannot exceed $750,000.00, but that amount excludes any ownership interest in the WOSB and any equity interest in her primary personal residence. Finally, a woman will not be considered economically disadvantaged if the fair market value of all of her assets, including the value of the WOSB and her primary residence, exceeds $3 million.

The SBA’s proposed rule allows WOSBs to self-certify or to be certified by third-parties, including the government and private certification groups. To prevent fraud and abuse, the SBA intends to engage in a significant number of program examinations to confirm eligibility and to vigorously pursue ineligible firms that attempt to take advantage of the program.

The comment period for the proposed rule ended on May 3, 2010. The SBA is currently reviewing and responding to the comments and will likely issue a final rule at some point in the near future.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.  Lori Wisniewski Azzara is an Associate in the firm's Construction Group, who focuses her practice on disadvantaged business entities.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Lane F. Kelman

On May 3, 2010, the SBA's definition of the term "employee" of a Historically Underutilized Business Zone ("HUBZone") was amended. The new definition establishes a more definitive but stringent reading of when a person is considered an employee for HUBZone eligibility purposes. (See the SBA's HUBZone regulations). The construction industry in particular will be impacted. The amended definition states:

Employee means all individuals employed on a full-time, part-time, or other basis, so long as that individual works a minimum of 40 hours per month. This includes employees obtained from a temporary employee agency, leasing concern, or through a union agreement or co-employed pursuant to a professional employer organization agreement. SBA will consider the totality of the circumstances, including criteria used by the IRS for Federal income tax purposes and those set forth in SBA's Size Policy Statement No. 1, in determining whether individuals are employees of a concern. Volunteers (i.e., individuals who receive deferred compensation or no compensation, including no in-kind compensation, for work performed) are not considered employees. However, if an individual has an ownership interest in and works for the HUBZone SBC a minimum of 40 hours per month, that owner is considered an employee regardless of whether or not the individual receives compensation.

13 CFR § 126.103

Among other criteria, in order to qualify as a HUBZone, at least 35% of the firm's employees must reside in a designated HUBZone. Previously, when calculating the 35% threshold, only "full-time" or "permanent" employees were considered. In many industries, such as manufacturing, the distinction between a "permanent" and "temporary" employee is clear. In other industries, such as construction, the distinction wasn't always quite as clear. As a result, construction companies did not include its temporary, project specific field labor when calculating the percentage of its employees residing in a HUBZone. Now, however, if "that individual works a minimum of 40 hours per month" then the person is considered an employee.

It is anticipated that the amendment will result in many construction companies being unable to meet the 35% threshold and therefore ineligible as a qualified HUBZone. The change also creates a new dynamic between a contractor and a trade union that supplies manpower, as the contractor, if certified as a HUBZone SBC, will want to draw from a labor pool that resides in a HUBZone. Although the proposed change was made in November of 2009, the construction industry did not provide substantive comments to the proposal.

See the SBA's HUBZone website for more details.

Lane F. Kelman is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On April 26, 2010, President Obama issued an executive order to study the way in which the government provides assistance to veteran-owned and service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses. This executive order could not have come at a better time. It appears that the government has a two-fold problem: achieving federally mandated goals for veteran-owned and service-disabled companies and eliminating fraud in its small business programs, generally. 

On April 30, 2010, the Government Accountability Office issued a report to the House of Representatives, Small Business Committee concluding that fraud continues to run rampant in the government's small business programs. In an investigation conducted between October of 2008 and January of 2010, the GAO identified fourteen (14) companies that falsely held themselves out as 8(a) eligible and secured work through the government's set-aside programs.  The work obtained by their companies totaled $325 million. This report was issued less than six (6) months after the GAO issued a similar report that focused on fraud relating to contracts set-aside for veterans and service-disabled veterans.

As revealed by the GAO reports, fraud in the federal small business programs is wide-spread and, undoubtedly, has been exacerbated by the economic slowdown. The once robust private sector has run dry. As a result, more and more contractors have become interested in entering the federal marketplace. That has resulted in many more contractors bidding on federal work. This increased competition has generated much interest in small business set-asides, where the field is not nearly as crowded. Unfortunately, not all contractors have entered the small business world consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations or the Small Business Administration's regulatory framework.

If fraud was not enough, legitimate small businesses, including veteran-owned and service-disabled, veteran-owned firms, are also being hurt by the failure of the government to hit its contracting goals. As reported by BradentonHerald.com, the Department of Defense represents but one prominent government agency that has fallen short. In recent testimony before the House of Representatives, Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, a representative of the American Legion cited statistics indicating that less than one percent of DoD's contracts were awarded to service-disabled, veteran-owned companies last year, far less than the Congressionally-mandated three percent goal. While such numbers sound insignificant, they account for billions of dollars government-wide.

President Obama's executive order is aimed at addressing at least some of these issues. The executive order requires the Administrator of the SBA to serve as the chairperson of a government-wide task force designed to do the following, among other things:

* Ensure achievement of the pre-established federal contracting goals for small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans and service-disabled veterans through expanded mentor-protégé assistance and matching small business concerns with contracting opportunities; and
* Increasing the integrity of certifications of status as a small business concern owned and controlled by a veteran or service-disabled veteran.

The task force must issue a formal report to President Obama within one year. After back to back GAO reports depicting systemic problems in the government's small business programs, one can only hope that this administration says "Yes We Can" to small business reform. Lip service to reform is no longer an option. 

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. 
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Final Rule governing Service Disabled Veteran-Owned small Business Concerns (“SDVOSB”) was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2010. This law requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to verify ownership and control of veteran-owned small businesses, including service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. The final rule also defines the eligibility requirements for businesses to obtain “verified'' status, explains examination procedures, and establishes records retention and review processes.

As reported by Jason Miller, the Executive Director of Federal News Radio in an article published in the SDVOSB Blog, Veteran-Owned and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses must have only one business in the federal contract set-aside program and work in that business full time. The article, entitled “VA Sets Rules for Set-Aside Program,” also emphasizes that “The net effect of this change is that a company that is closely held by veterans would qualify regardless of the size of the employee stock ownership program,” and “Alternatively, a firm that is not closely held by veterans will find it much more difficult to qualify for the Verification Program.”

Veteran-Owned and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses must re-certify annually to the VA that they meet the requirements to obtain set-aside contracts from agencies. The rule comes after the Government Accountability Office told the House Veterans Affairs Committee in December that the service-disabled veteran-owned business program is vulnerable to fraud and abuse. Anyone who seeks to use the services of a disabled veteran, or of an existing SDVOSB, to circumvent the letter and spirit of this program would be well advised to recognize that SDVOSB concerns are under close scrutiny because of the reported abuses.

Michael Payne is a Partner and is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne and Edward T. DeLisle

In order to qualify as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (“HUBZone”) contractor, a firm must be a “small business” based on the size standards provided by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS); the firm must be at least 51% owned and controlled by citizens of the United States; the firm's principal office (where the greatest number of employees perform their work, excluding contract sites) must be located in a designated HUBZone; and at least 35% of the firm's total workforce must reside in a designated HUBZone. In construction, a company does not need to include its temporary, project specific, field labor force among the 35% of its employees who must reside in a HUBZone.   (See the SBA's HUBZone regulations).

The program encourages small businesses to locate in and hire employees from economically disadvantaged areas. Small firms participating in the program can receive competitive advantages in winning federal contracts. The government generally expects approximately three percent (3%) of all federal contracting dollars to be awarded to HUBZone firms annually. As reported by the HUBZONE Contractors National Council, as of January 8, 2010, there were 9,255 HUBZone-certified small business concerns specializing in the following major industries:

• Construction - 2,984 firms (32% of total)
• Services - 4,176 firms (45.1%)
• Research & Development - 879 firms (9.5%)
• Manufacturing - 1,675 firms (18.1%)
(Numbers total more than 9,255 because some firms appear in more than one industry category.)

Many HUBZone-certified firms are also certified in other set-aside programs. 12.2% of HUBZone firms are also 8(a) small businesses (minority-owned); 8.0% are Service Disabled Veteran-owned firms; and 0.9% are qualified in all three set-aside programs.

The mission of the HUBZone program, as expressed by the SBA, is “to promote job growth, capital investment, and economic development to historically underutilized business zones by providing contracting assistance to small businesses located in these economically distressed communities.” See the SBA’s HUBZone website for more details. In order to apply for HUBZone status, companies are encouraged to apply using the electronic application on the SBA website.
 

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group. Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Practice Group. He is a available to assist federal contractors on a whole range of small business issues including HUBZone certification, 8(a)compliance issues, Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business formation, and teaming arrangements.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

In recent testimony provided to the House of Representative’s Committee on Small Business, a disturbing fact was revealed: millions of dollars earmarked for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses (“SDVOSBs”) have been paid to companies that do not qualify for the program. Compounding the problem is the fact that insufficient fraud-prevention programs exist to effectively combat such abuses. This was the conclusion reached by United States Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) following a case study that included an investigation of ten (10) companies claiming SDVOSB eligibility.

In 2008 alone, $6.5 billion in federal contracts were awarded to companies that self-certified themselves as SDVOSBs. While this figure only represents 1.5% of all government contracts paid in that fiscal year, it is still a very large number. If the federal government ever attains its mandated goal of 3%, many more billions will become available to qualified SDVOSBs. Given the paucity of work in the private sector over the course of the last eighteen (18) months, many companies are attempting to tap into this potential source of revenue. As the GAO pointed out, however, a number of these companies have misrepresented their credentials, effectively taking contracts away from those that truly qualify to receive them.

The companies identified in the GAO case study received approximately $100 million in SDVOSB contracts, and over $300 million in additional 8(a), HUBZone and other non-SDVOSB contracts through the federal government. Certainly, none of these monies should have been paid to the companies in question. Notwithstanding the same, because there are no requirements to terminate contracts when a firm is deemed ineligible, in certain circumstances, companies were permitted to continue performing, despite the government’s determination that the firm did not qualify as an SDVOSB. Many more were not debarred from receiving federal contracts, even though the transgressions noted were obvious and seemingly blatant.

The GAO did note that Department of Veteran’s Affairs (the “VA”) has taken steps to address this problem by introducing an SDVOSB validation process. That process includes confirming an owner’s status as a disabled veteran, as well as his or her control over day-to-day operations. The problem, however, is that the VA’s certification and validation process is not a government-wide system. It is limited to those contracts issued directly by the VA. Because many other federal agencies issue contracts that are earmarked for SDVOSBs, there are considerable gaps in the SDVOSB program.

If your company is an SDVOSB, or if you are interested in forming a company that qualifies for participation in the program, it is very important for you to comply with applicable SBA and procurement regulations. The fierce competition for federal government contracts exposes many companies to size status protests which, if successful, can cause an SDVOSB to lose an award. Our Federal Contracting Practice Group is available to assist you with these important compliance issues.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and is a member of the firm’s Federal Contract Practice Group. He is extensively involved in the representation of construction contractors on small business issues.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A protest was filed recently in the United Stated Court of Federal Claims by our firm on behalf of a small business construction contractor challenging a solicitation issued by the Fort Worth District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The solicitation, No. W9126G-07-R-0123, is one of four similar solicitations for the construction of military projects described as Advanced Individual Training (AIT), Basic Training (BT) Barracks, and Warrior in Transition (WIT) facilities. The construction is being solicited through the use of a negotiated Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) procurement on a Single Award Task Order (“SATOC”) basis.  Under the terms of the solicitation a single contractor will be selected to perform task orders, without competition, amounting to as much as $330 million over the next three years in an eight state area. The other three similar solicitations contain similar dollar values and apply to similarly extensive geographic areas.

The protest seeks an injunction to prevent the Corps of Engineers from proceeding with the solicitation because of our contention that it is unduly restrictive of competition; it violates the laws prohibiting “bundling” by unlawfully consolidating smaller projects that would have been suitable for small business prime contracting; and, it illegally employs supplies and services indefinite delivery contracting methods under FAR 16.5 to procure large military complexes. There has been a growing outcry from both the small and large business construction communities in recent months regarding the expanded use by the Department of Defense of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity solicitations to procure construction, seemingly ignoring the fact that indefinite delivery contracts are typically used to acquire supplies and services on a much smaller scale. It is our opinion that Single Award Task Order Contracts and Multiple Award Task Order Contracts are illegally limiting competition and that they may not be appropriately applied to the procurement of major construction projects. 

It is also disturbing that the amount of construction work that is available for sealed bidding is declining to the point that many construction contractors are being closed out of the federal market. (See our earlier article).  The use of sealed bidding provides the greatest opportunity for competition and ultimately results in the lowest prices to the government. This was confirmed by a recent decision of the Court of Federal Claims that held that sealed bidding was the preferred method for the procurement of maintenance dredging and shore protection work.

Although we cannot predict the outcome of the pending protest, we believe that it is important for the Court to review whether there is legal and rational basis for the use of the IDIQ format to procure major construction. The Corps of Engineers has indefinitely postponed the date for receipt of proposals while this matter is under consideration.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent Government Accountability Office decision, Tessa Structures, LLC, B-298835, highlights the difference between responsiveness and responsibility determinations and the obligation of an agency to refer responsibility determinations to the Small Business Administration (SBA).  The protestor, a small business, responded to a Federal Highway Administration solicitation seeking bids for bridge painting.  As part of its bid, each prospective contractor was required to state the number of days of performance, not to exceed 305 days.  The protestor, Tessa Structures, submitted the low bid and stated that it would perform in 120 days. 

The FHWA reviewed Tessa’s bid and requested that Tessa explain how it would perform in 120 days. Tessa advised the FHWA that it planned to begin at the end of August and complete before Christmas; significantly, as discussed below, Tessa did not include its assumption that it would receive notice to proceed by August 28 with its bid. The FHWA believed that Tessa’s plan to begin at the end of August was contrary to the solicitation because the agency reserved the right to issue a notice to proceed as late as October 24^th.  The FHWA rejected Tessa’s bid as non-responsive, based upon Tessa’s 120 day performance period and its assumption regarding the notice to proceed, without seeking any input from the SBA. 

The GAO determined that Tessa’s bid with a 120 day planned performance period was improperly rejected by the FHWA because the issue of performing within a set period of time was a matter of responsibility, not responsiveness.   The GAO found that because the solicitation specified only a maximum performance period, (305 days) and no minimum period, Tessa could properly bid to perform in a shorter period.  Furthermore, Tessa did not insert anything in its bid that restricted or qualified its performance in contravention of the solicitation. Of particular importance to the GAO was the fact that Tessa did not insert its assumption about the issuance of the notice to proceed in its bid, and, therefore, did not contravene the solicitation’s notice to proceed requirements. Had Tessa provided these assumptions in its bid, it most likely would have been found non-responsive.    

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent Court of Federal Claims case, Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc., December 4, 2006, reinforces the necessity for contracting officers to refer all protests regarding a company’s HUBZone status to the Small Business Administration (SBA). In Diversified, the agency set aside a procurement for HUBZone businesses only. All but two of the seven offerors were disqualified for various reasons. The agency awarded a contract to Cadence Contract Services and the other offeror, Diversified, immediately submitted a protest to the contracting officer, challenging the HUBZone status of the awardee. 

Diversified’s protest alleged that the awardee’s office in Utah was not located in a certified HUBZone and that Utah’s records did not list a HUBZone company by that name at that address.  The contracting officer denied the protest, stating that the awardee’s address in New York was in a HUBZone and that he had verified the HUBZone eligibility of the offeror at the New York address by checking the SBA’s website. Diversified then filed its protest with the Court of Federal Claims. After the litigation began, the government conceded to the Court that the contracting officer had failed to submit the offeror’s protest to the SBA, as required. Consequently, the government requested that the protest be submitted to the SBA. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has published a Technical Assistance Guide designed to help federal government construction contractors and subcontractors comply with the federal laws and regulations that prohibit government contractors from discriminating in employment, and require that they undertake affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity in their workforces.  It is intended for government contractors who have construction contracts and/or subcontracts.  The obligations of government contractors and subcontractors who hold non-construction contracts differ in significant ways and are covered in a separate guide.

This Guide does not create new legal requirements or change current legal requirements. Instead, it reflects the views of OFCCP and is intended to serve as a basic resource document on OFCCP-administered laws. The legal requirements related to equal employment opportunity that apply to Federal supply and service contractors are contained in the statutes, executive orders, and regulations cited in the Guide. Every effort has been made to insure that the information contained in the Guide is accurate and up to date.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A new regulation announced by the Small Business Administration on November 15, 2006, to be effective on June 30, 2007, requires small businesses to recertify their size when they are purchased by or merged with a larger business, or at the end of the five-year point of a contract.  The rules are intended to help small businesses obtain more federal contracts and to assure that contracts set aside for small businesses are not going to larger companies.  As reported in the Thompson West publication, the Government Contractor Online Update, “According to SBA Administrator Steven Preston, the changes “will go a long way toward ensuring that contract awards get in the hands of small business owners, federal agencies get the proper credit toward their small business contracting goals and small business contracts are fairly and accurately reported..’”

There are critics of the new policy, however, who contend that the SBA has not gone far enough to prevent larges businesses from intruding into the small business marketplace.  The American Small Business League has commented that “A new policy proposed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) will allow the government to continue reporting awards to large companies as federal small business contracts.” (See the full article).

Pertinent parts of the new regulation are as follows:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link