Swampdonkey

Thanks for the reply Don. That does help. And Vern, I'm asking your question ( b ). I look forward to your reply!

I was hoping there was a newbie forum where I could appropriately post this question...I apologize if it's silly. I have been wondering this though, why does the government categorize contracts into types? I ask because when I'm negotiating contracts with other companies unrelated to the Government Contracting industry, contracts are never categorized. For example, Acme Inc. comes in to do a top-to-bottom HR review and we pay them $100k for a report. It's not identified as an FFP type contract. We pay Acme Inc. to do some consulting work and it's not identified as a T&M contract, it's just a flat hourly fee. I've asked experienced Government Contracts attorneys and only received, "because that's how it's done responses." I've also done my own research and found nothing. My best guess is that it has something to do with efficiency and standardization. Thank you in advance for any replies.

Not a problem. I'm surprised it took this many responses for a joke to appear. I have read 73.13(d) and that process has unfortunately concluded. In spite of that provision, and maybe this is semantics, but I believe a legitimate argument can be made that because SBA size determinations are prospective only, we should still be eligible to compete for SDVOSB task orders under the current ID/IQ. There is even a case to this effect. Of course though, once the SBA determines a concern other than small, that decision is "final".

Thanks for the responses. I have read some of those regulations. As far as the deadlines go, mistakes were made, then the legal group was brought into the fold. All applicable time periods have run out. Additionally, think it was our reapplication that triggered the removal. I also understand that the CVE falls under the VA's purview. However, size issues are the SBA's jurisdiction. But then again, I would think the VAAR takes legal precedence over any SBA regulations as to a VA administered program. My thoughts at this point are to either write a letter to the SBA detailing the issue, although making it clear we are not appealing their size determination, or reapply to CVE. There is also of course the court system, but I do not believe we would take it that far.

Getting back into CVE. To clarify, two years ago we could compete for SDVOSB set-aside task orders. Now we cannot.

My company won a ID/IQ contract with the VA and was eligible to compete for SDVOSB set-aside task orders. Two years later we are removed from CVE for becoming large. After researching how to gain re-enlistment in CVE, I seem to have discovered a quagmire. There are SBA regulations that state you are considered small for the life of the contract, unless three events occur (none of which have in this case). Additionally, even if we are considered large, that determination is prospective only and will have no retroactive effect. By all accounts, the law says we should be eligible to compete for SDVOSB set aside task orders on this ID/IQ. However, there is a VAAR clause that shows up in SDVOSB set aside task orders which states, and I am paraphrasing, any potential offerors must be listed in the VA's CVE database. It is my understanding that the CVE database is not contract specific. A company is either, broadly speaking, small or not small. That is to say, a company is not listed as an SDVOSB for contract A, but not contract B in CVE. Broadly speaking, we are not a SB anymore, yet the law says we should be able to compete for SDVOSB set aside task orders. So my question is, how does my company get re-listed in CVE? Would any petition for re-enlistment start with the CVE or SBA? Thanks in advance for any suggestions.