Koprince Law LLC

The SBA revamped its HUBZone rules in the last few years, making several changes to the HUBZone program. However, we continue to see updates to how SBA interprets these rules as it puts out policy guidance frequently. In this webinar, government contracts attorneys Nicole Pottroff and John Holtz will discuss these changes and SBA’s related guidance. If you’re a HUBZone contractor trying to remain compliant or have thought about obtaining a HUBZone certification, please join us. Register here. The post Govology Webinar: Understanding & Obtaining HUBZone Certification (2023 Update), March 21, 2023, 1:00PM EDT first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Happy Friday and Happy March Madness. The country sure has been getting some wacky weather this week as spring is set to arrive soon. Here in Kansas, we are starting to see the first green sprouts emerging from the ground and everyone is getting really excited about the NCAA basketball tournament. Time to prepare your bracket and cheer on your favorite team as they fight to advance to the next level. There were several announcements this week in federal government contracting, including implementation guidance from the Whitehouse on “No TikTok on Government Devices”. You can read about that and other related content in our articles list below. Have a great weekend. Navy Office of Small Business Programs hits the street to try and increase 8(a) awards [FedNewsNet] “No TikTok on Government Devices” Implementation Guidance [Whitehouse] White House gives federal agencies 30 days to ban TikTok from all government devices — report [FedScoop] Rep. Ken Buck: federal agencies should reconsider future Amazon contract awards [FedScoop] What will ChatGPT mean for the US defense-industrial base? [FedTimes] How not to ruin your chance to bid [WashTech] Treasury Announces Approval of Up to $353.4 Million to Support Small Business Success Across Four States [DoT] What the White House TikTok memo means for federal IT departments [FedScoop] State Dept must study ability of US allies to combat cybercrime: GAO [FedScoop] FAA awards 15 prime contracts as part of $2.3B systems engineering procurement [FedScoop] U.S. Marshals Service hacked in ‘major incident’ [FCW] Rights groups push ICE to end contract with LexisNexis [FCW] New White House cyber strategy looks to redistribute risks, responsibilities [FCW] Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Prompt Payment of Contractors (DFARS Case 2021-D008) [FedReg] Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Quick-Closeout Procedures Threshold (DFARS Case 2021-D001) [FedReg] Why contractors need to focus on the brass tacks. [FedNewsNet] Federal Public Official Sentenced for Accepting Bribes [DoJ] Sherwin-Williams to Pay $1 Million to Resolve Alleged False Claims Act Violations Arising from Bridge Painting Project [DoJ] The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 27-March 3, 2023 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Source selection decisions are often a point of contention for federal government contractors, and rightfully so. Contractors spend large amounts of time and resources putting together a bid in a competition that likely doesn’t have room to make an award to each bidder. This usually results in one or more awardees, as well as one or more disappointed bidders. Naturally, those disappointed bidders often question whether the agency’s source selection decision, and its method for getting there, was appropriate. Unfortunately, the only way of truly discerning whether that decision was correct is to spend more time and resources protesting the decision. With a 51% effectiveness rate in 2022 (counting sustains and corrective actions), according to GAO’s annual bid protest report, it can be difficult to determine whether to even go forward with a protest when things don’t seem to add up. But, as a recent protest demonstrates, agencies make mistakes, and in this case, the fatal flaw was failure to adequately document its decision. Background The decision in RemedyBiz, Inc. centered on a Department of Education (DOE) request for quotations (RFQ) to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with a vendor. RemedyBiz, Inc., B- 421196, 2023 CPD ¶ 29 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 17, 2023). DOE planned to issue task orders to the awardee for the implementation of a new acquisition management system. The RFQ stated DOE would evaluate the offers in three separate phases. First, DOE would evaluate offerors using only their prior experience for Phase 1. Second, offerors would give oral presentations, with at least three of its key personnel presenting. DOE would also review the key personnel’s resumes as part of Phase 2. Phase 3 would evaluate offerors’ quotations under the technical and price factors. DOE planned to evaluate all non-price factors “holistically,” assigning a rating of “high confidence,” “some confidence,” or “low confidence” to each non-price factor. Offerors’ price proposals were evaluated regarding the fairness and reasonableness of their labor categories, labor rates, and total evaluated price for the first task order (Task Order 1) under the BPA. Three vendors made it through to the final round of evaluations: RemedyBiz, Inc. (Protester), Centennial Technologies, Inc. (Awardee), and one additional offeror. RemedyBiz received a rating of “some confidence” for its prior experience, oral presentation, and key personnel, and received a rating of “high confidence” for its technical proposal. RemedyBiz’s total evaluated price for Task Order 1 was $19,761,453. Centennial was assigned a rating of “high confidence” on all four of its non-price factors, and its total evaluated price for Task Order 1 was $18,631,479. The contracting officer made the award to Centennial based on the fact that it was assigned a “high confidence” for all non-price factors, and because it had a lower price for Task Order 1, stating that the situation did not warrant a best value tradeoff analysis. Protest Following award to Centennial, RemedyBiz protested DOE’s award and evaluation of the non-price factors in both its own proposal as well as Centennial’s. GAO reviewed the record and determined that three out of the four non-price factors, oral presentation, key personnel, and technical evaluations were reasonable, consistent with the terms of the RFQ and applicable regulations, and supported by the record. However, GAO found the prior experience factor was not supported by the record. Prior Experience Factor Now, I’m not going to pretend I am well-versed in the ins and outs of “Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) development level 3,” and, for our purpose, it is not necessarily important to know either. What is important is that the RFQ required offerors to submit three examples of recent and relevant work, with the requirement that one example “must be related to end-to-end federal Acquisition Management System [AMS] implementation.” When GAO looked into the documentation of DOE’s decision, it found RemedyBiz and Centennial both met the prior experience requirements of the RFQ, but received different outcomes. Both submitted three examples of recent and relevant work with a contract value over $5 million, and one of those examples was relevant work that was related to end-to-end AMS implementation. Both RemedyBiz and Centennial were CMMI development level 3 certified, and both submitted information on implementation methodology and hybrid implementation. The remainder of DOE’s source selection documentation relevant to the prior experience factor stated: For the NIH [National Institutes of Health] contract referenced, as per the “Contract Effort Description,” the project is for the O & M [operations and maintenance] of various systems that includes ITSM [Information Technology Service Management], etc. In CY [calendar year] 21 and CY22, RemedyBiz did PRISM upgrade, but not new implementation mentioned. That’s it. There was nothing more in the record to support the source selection decision, and, as protester pointed out, on paper, the evaluation of the individual prior performance criteria were the exact same. Yet, RemedyBiz was assigned “some confidence” for its overall rating of prior experience, while Centennial was assigned “high confidence.” When RemedyBiz pointed out the unsupported discrepancy in its protest, DOE claimed that RemedyBiz only provided one example of end-to-end federal AMS implementation, while Centennial offered multiple. GAO determined that even if this was true, there was no documentation showing DOE’s consideration of Centennial’s examples. It often feels like GAO will uphold agency decisions based on a seemingly far-fetched notion, or with a very small amount of documentation. In fact, GAO will even take into consideration previously unrecorded details if they are consistent with source selection documentation. However, in this case, DOE’s post-protest explanation was not consistent with the contemporaneous documentation of the agency’s decision, and GAO sustained the protest on this basis. Additional Protest Grounds Remember the three non-price factors that were found to be fair and reasonable? Well, even though those grounds for protest did not result in a sustain, there still is much to learn from them. First, the RFQ called for an oral presentation from each vendor in Phase 2. The presentation was limited to teams of five employees, three of whom were key personnel. The RFQ also stated key personnel “must be employees” of the offeror or the offeror must submit a contingent offer letter. During its oral presentation, the only key personnel of RemedyBiz that contributed to the conversation was its program manager. RemedyBiz had one additional executive that contributed, but that executive would not be part of the RemedyBiz delivery team. Additionally, RemedyBiz’s development lead—also considered key personnel—was not an employee, but rather was committed via a contingent offer. RemedyBiz protested its ratings of “some confidence” on oral presentation and key personnel, claiming that DOE’s “lower[ed] expectation of success” based on these two factors, was an application of unstated evaluation criteria. However, GAO sided with the agency on both factors. RemedyBiz’s lowered rating for oral presentation was deemed to be fair and reasonable, stating that “the purpose of the oral presentations was for the agency to ‘understand’ vendors’ technical and management approaches for implementing the AMS ‘directly from the vendor.” GAO reasoned that the rating of “some confidence” based on the contingent offer for the program manager was also fair and reasonable, stating that there is no reason in the RFQ that the “availability of key personnel cannot reasonably be considered as part of the evaluation of the key personnel factor.” Essentially, the RFQ didn’t prohibit the source selection authority from assigning a lower rating for contingent offers than it would assign for key personnel who are already employees of the offeror, despite the fact that contingent offers were expressly permitted. Sounds a bit like conversations with my own kids when they do something they aren’t supposed to, “but you didn’t say I couldn’t do that.” RemedyBiz also protested of the technical evaluation factor, asserting that DOE “unreasonably criticized [its] approach to license management as ‘very generic’ and unjustifiably questioned” the effectiveness of RemedyBiz’s offer. However, because RemedyBiz had already received the highest rating possible for the technical factor, it was not prejudiced by this decision and, therefore, GAO denied the protest of this factor. Conclusion RemedyBiz’s protest was sustained because DOE’s evaluation of prior experience was not supported by the record. Remember, even though GAO upheld DOE’s decisions for oral presentation, key personnel, and technical factors, it often only takes one wrongdoing to result in a sustained protest. As such, GAO recommended that DOE reevaluate the proposals with adequate documentation and establish a new BPA and task order if Centennial is not found to be the best value. Questions about this post? Email us . Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post GAO Sustain: Agency Failed to Document Prior Experience Evaluation first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

We at SmallGovCon have explored some examples of protests where an unfortunate oversight by a contractor has been the difference between winning and losing. This, of course, can be very frustrating to contractors, especially considering that federal agencies often get leeway where contractors wouldn’t. But federal agencies, too, make mistakes, and even simple ones can be enough for a successful protest. This was the case in a January 2023 decision by GAO. In June 2021, the Secret Service issued a task order for some of its telecom and IT service needs. AT&T Corp., B-421195 (Jan. 17, 2023). As is often the case, the award decision would be made on a best-value basis. Here, there would be four technical factors: Performance Management, Technical Approach, Transition Approach, and Past Performance. The agency received five proposals, one from AT&T and another from Lumen Corporation (You might remember them as CenturyLink). The proposals were first reviewed by an evaluation team. AT&T received a rating of “good” for the factors of Performance Management and Technical Approach and “satisfactory” for the other two. The evaluation team had initially assigned AT&T’s proposal 42 strengths across the non-price factors. Lumen received a rating of “satisfactory” for all four non-price factors. However, Lumen offered a lower price than AT&T: $28,607,930 as opposed to $36,838,243. This evaluation was then subjected to the review of the contracting officer (CO), who was also the source selection authority. The CO stated he agreed with the evaluation team’s ratings for AT&T. He, however, listed just nine specific strengths of AT&T’s proposal in his analysis. He later would explain that he did not agree with all the strengths the team assigned AT&T’s proposal. As for Lumen’s proposal, the CO noted it was the lowest priced, and furthermore identified four additional strengths in Lumen’s proposal, raising its adjectival rating for Performance Management from “satisfactory” to “good.” The CO then explained that while AT&T’s offer was more highly technically rated overall, it was not so much better than Lumen’s to justify the price difference and awarded the task order to Lumen. AT&T protested this award, and its argument rested on the fact that the CO had failed to include an explanation as to why he only noted nine strengths as opposed to the 42 strengths the evaluation team found. GAO agreed with AT&T noting “it is an agency’s obligation to adequately document the basis of its evaluation and best-value tradeoff, and, where an agency fails to do so, it runs the risk that our Office will be unable to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable. In addition, changes made by the SSA to the TET’s evaluation record must be adequately documented.” Furthermore, while GAO will consider post-protest explanations that provide a rationale and fill in previously unrecorded details, that is subject to the requirement that the explanation must be consistent with the record. GAO observed that the record contained no support for the arguments the agency now raised as to why the CO discarded most of AT&T’s strengths. For example, the CO had removed a strength because he stated other offerors had discussed the ability to meet that same strength. But the record did not support this argument even. It is worth noting that GAO’s decision here rests entirely on the fact that the CO didn’t explain his reasoning, not that his decisions were somehow wrong. For example, GAO observed that the CO did provide reasons as to why he assigned Lumen more strengths than the evaluation team. In other words, what this all came down to is that the CO simply didn’t explain his decisions on AT&T’s proposal in the evaluation. Agencies have to explain their reasoning for their decisions in their documentation. They can be right as rain and it won’t matter if they don’t explain why they did what they did. GAO may have even agreed with the CO’s conclusions, but he didn’t show his work. This is something contractors should be on the lookout for when they get notified of award decisions. Questions about this post? Email us . Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Showing Your Work: Protest of Evaluation Sustained for Lack of Explanation by Agency first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

The government contracting legal landscape has gone through many important changes in 2022 and the first part of 2023, including new small business rules, SDVOSB certification requirements, recent domestic preference changes under the Buy American Act, key provisions of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act and other laws passed in 2022, and much more. In this session, we will provide a comprehensive update on the most important government contracting legal changes in 2022, and the projected changes in the first months of 2023. This webinar is hosted by The Catalyst Center for Business & Entrepreneurship. Hope to see you there! Register here. The post Free Virtual Workshop: Legislative Changes that May Affect Your Small GovCon Business, February 28, 3:00-5:00PM CST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Happy Friday, Readers! Can you believe that February is almost over? I guess that means we are one month closer to Spring. Stay safe if you are in the areas of the country getting pounded by more snowfall. In the middle of the country, the thermometer has been going up and down so much on a daily basis, we just never know what we will get. That’s Kansas for you. We have included a few news articles on the federal government contracting issues this week. There is some good thoughts this week on how contractors can approach the debt ceiling standoff, as well as federal diversity and inclusivity goals. Enjoy and we hope you have a great weekend. Creating a More Diverse and Resilient Federal Marketplace through Increased Participation of New and Recent Entrants [WH] Federal Awardee Database Integration Falls Short [POGO] DLA Named Agency of the Year for Supporting Nation’s Small Businesses [DoD] Federal IT leaders see ‘critical moment’ in securing systems from fraud [FedNewsNet] The Debt Ceiling Standoff Has Federal Contractors On Edge [Inc] Biden pushes federal agencies to meet diversity, inclusivity goals [FedTimes] Department of Labor to Offer Online Seminars to Educate Current, Prospective Federal Contractors on Prevailing Wage Requirements [DoL] Recidivist Fraudster Pleads Guilty To Fraud, Identity Theft, And Making False Statements In Connection With Andrews Air Force Base Construction Contract [DoJ] US Department of Labor Recovers $3.1M in Wages, Benefits for 3,100 Workers Employed by a Federal Subcontractor Servicing Benefeds Program [DoL] Why so many Federal IT Contracts Fail and what to do about it [BOG] NASA, Air Force contractor to settle with DOJ for $400,000 in False Claims Act case [FedScoop] Pending cloud pilot could get DOD to zero trust in a year rather than five [DefScoop] Rules on Gifts in the Federal Government [FedWeek] The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 20-24, 2023 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

SBA, without much commentary, recently removed the so-called reasonable commute requirement for service-disabled veterans (SDV) who owned or managed service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB). This rule used to require that veterans live near the principal office or job site, but it sometimes caused issues for SDVOSBs because of how restrictive it could be. Thankfully, SBA has removed this requirement. Since SBA brought little attention to this change, we want to highlight it in this post and say farewell to this SDVOSB requirement. The old rules governing SDVOSBs included a rebuttable presumption that a service-disabled veteran SDVOSB does not control the firm based on location. It said: (l) Close proximity. There is rebuttable presumption that a veteran or, in the case of an SDVO SBC, service-disabled veteran does not control the firm if that individual is not located within a reasonable commute to firm’s headquarters and/or job-sites locations, regardless of the firm’s industry. The veteran or, in the case of an SDVO SBC, service-disabled veteran’s ability to answer emails, communicate by telephone, or to communicate at a distance by other technological means, while delegating the responsibility of managing the concern to others is not by itself a reasonable rebuttal. 13 C.F.R. § 125.13(l)(rule no longer in effect). The VA used to interpret this rule to mean that the SDV had to live within 150 miles of the headquarters or job site. Crosstown Courier Service Inc., SBA No. CVE-239 (July 26, 2022). But it could be enforced pretty strictly. For instance, when an SDV lived over 1200 miles from a job site, SBA upheld a ruling that the SDVOSB was in eligible as the headquarters was “located more than 1,200 miles from the job locations in North Dakota and Minnesota.” FHITO Logistics, LLC, SBA No. CVE-202 (Sept. 2, 2021). Plus, the regulation used to say that electronic communication is not sufficient to demonstrate control where an SDV did not live near its job sites or main office. Most would agree that the pandemic taught us that people can delegate tasks by use of electronic communication. In the same FHITO case, OHA said that, the SDV’s “ability to adequately supervise the work is questionable, and he offers no real rebuttal to this problem, especially when his ability to communicate electronically with the job site is excluded as a rebuttal by the regulation.” The proposed rule issued by SBA in 2022 did include the reasonable commute rule. However, in the final rule issued in fall of 2022, the reasonable commute and close proximity language has been eliminated. SBA did not include any federal register commentary expressing exactly why the rule was removed. However, SBA did state that it “revised the section (redesignated as § 128.203(h)) to be more consistent with the 8(a) BD program regulations governing control.” We can surmise, though, that SBA felt the rule was overly restrictive, especially when compared to other programs like the 8(a) Program, which never contained such a reasonable commute rule. Luckily, SBA has now agreed that the rule is no longer needed and has eliminated the rule entirely. Therefore, SDVOSBs can apparently worry a lot less about the location of their residence as compared to their principal office and job sites. Thanks to the SBA for making this common sense update. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post SBA Says Goodbye to Reasonable Commute Rule for SDVOSBs first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

This month, SBA issued a final rule updating its size standards for multiple NAICS codes in the manufacturing industries and industries with employee-based size standards in other sectors (except wholesale trade and retail trade). As the final rule explains in great detail, SBA increased some of the NAICS code’s size standards and retained others. Additionally, SBA decided to retain an employee based size standard for the nonmanufacturer rule. Let’s take a closer look. Under this final rule, SBA is officially changing the size standards for multiple NAICS codes under the following industries and sectors: Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (Sector 21); Utilities (Sector22); Manufacturing (Sector 31-33); Transportation and Warehousing (Sector 48-49); Information (Section 51); Finance and Insurance (Sector 52); Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (Sector 54); and Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services (Sector 56). Specifically, SBA is increasing 144 of the employee-based size standards in those sectors, and it is retaining 268 of them. To see the full list of these NAICS codes and SBA’s updates, take a look at the tables in the final rule itself. SBA’s final rule explains that, in its April 2022 proposed rule on these size standard changes, it discussed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on small businesses. As SBA states: Recognizing the wide-ranging economic impacts of the pandemic, SBA decided not to lower any size standards for which the analysis suggested lowering them. Instead, SBA proposed to maintain all size standards for industries in which the analytical results supported a decrease or no change to size standards and adopt all size standards for which the analytical results supported an increase to size standards, except for nine industries where SBA’s evaluation of dominance in field of operation indicated that size standards should be maintained at the current levels to exclude dominant firms and one industry for which SBA proposed to adopt a smaller increase to the size standard also to exclude dominant firms. As is required, SBA’s final rule also addresses the public’s comments on these changes and a regulatory impact analysis, which covers SBA’s need for the rule change, potential alternatives, and anticipated benefits. Finally, SBA confirmed its plan from the April 2022 proposed rule to keep the current 500-employee size standard for procurements of supplies under the nonmanufacturer rule. In the proposed rule, SBA did explore the possibility of adopting a receipt-based size standard for the nonmanufacturer rule. But in the end, and after addressing public comments both supporting and opposing SBA retaining the employee size standard, SBA decided to stick with the 500-employee size standard. SBA explained: In the proposed rule, as an alternative, SBA calculated a receipts-based size standard of $27 million for nonmanufacturers. However, although SBA evaluated a receipt-based size standard for nonmanufacturers, SBA believes that adopting a receipts-based size standard, instead of an employee-based size standard, would be inappropriate for several reasons. Specifically, the Small Business Act provides that the size of manufacturing firms be based on the number of employees and that the size of services firms be based on average annual receipts. Adopting a receipts based size standard under the nonmanufacturer rule, which currently applies only to Government acquisitions for supplies, would cause many manufacturing concerns supplying products to the Government as nonmanufacturers under the nonmanufacturer rule to be evaluated under a receipts-based size standard, which would be contrary to the requirements of the Small Business Act. Additionally, SBA cited data from the 2017 Economic Census, explaining that it found: [U]nder the calculated $27 million receipts-based size standard, more than 35,000 firms would lose their small business status they currently enjoy under the 500-employee nonmanufacturer size standard. As a result, SBA ultimately decided to maintain an employee-based size standard for nonmanufacturers. Again, for further information on the proposed rule, the public comments, and SBA’s full analyses of these changes, check out the final rule linked above. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post SBA Final Rule Updates Employee-Based Size Standards, but not for Nonmanufacturer Rule first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

The government contracting legal landscape has gone through many important changes in 2022 and the first part of 2023, including new small business rules, SDVOSB certification requirements, recent domestic preference changes under the Buy American Act, key provisions of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act and other laws passed in 2022, and much more. In this session, John Holtz and I, will provide a comprehensive update on the most important government contracting legal changes in 2022, and the projected changes in the first months of 2023. We hope you will join us for this informative event hosted by Texas El Paso Apex Accelerators (formerly PTAC). Register here. The post Webinar Event: Regulatory Updates in Government Contracting, February 23, 10:00-11:30am MST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

The government contracting legal landscape has gone through many important changes in 2022 and the first part of 2023, including new small business rules, SDVOSB certification requirements, recent domestic preference changes under the Buy American Act, and much more. In this session we will provide a comprehensive update on the most important government contracting legal changes. This is a “no-cost” Training. Register here. The post UTSA Apex Accelerator Webinar: Government Contracts Legal Update 2023, February 21, 2023, 10:00-11:30am CST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Happy Friday and happy belated Valentine’s Day. We hope you had a great week and found some time to celebrate with your loved ones. We have certainly been in celebration mode with the Kansas City Chiefs winning the Super Bowl on Sunday. What an exciting game and what a great season! There was a lot of news from the federal government contracting world this week, as well. We have included a few articles that we hope will be of interest to you below, including those on small business contracting involvement and CIO-SP4 protests. Enjoy your weekend. Small business participation in federal marketplace continues decline despite $159 billion in awards [FCW] JUST IN: Muddled Process Deterring Small Businesses from Defense Contracts, Study Shows [NatDefMag] This week in Congress: A full slate of leaders for VA [FedTimes] Spacelabs Healthcare, LLC Agrees to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle Allegations it Overcharged Federal Agencies for Patient Monitoring Equipment [DoJ] Biden is pushing contractors to cut emissions. They’re pushing back. [WashPost] NASA, Air Force contractor to settle with DOJ for $400,000 in False Claims Act case [FedScoop] New round of CIO-SP4 protests gets underway [WashTech] Contractors eye a report about contract management by the GSAIG [FedNewsNet] Insulation Contracting Firm Co-Owner Sentenced to Fifteen Months in Prison and Ordered to Pay more than $1 Million to Victims of Bid Rigging and Fraud [DoJ] NIH $50 billion IT services contract being buried under protests [FedNewsNet] The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 13-17, 2023 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Last month, the Department of Defense (DoD), released a memorandum to its contracting specialists asking them to utilize the popular but controversial category management tactics to attempt to increase small business participation in DoD procurements. Some have said that category management tends to decrease small business spend by, for instance, pushing procurement to larger contracting vehicles, so this memo attempts to turn conventional wisdom on its head. The DoD’s intentions with this memorandum will likely increase use of category management at the largest governmental buyers, despite this contracting trend being criticized as ineffective or counter productive to increasing small business participation. Below we dig into what the memo says. As you may know, category management basically boils down to agencies buying items or services as an organized entity and through government-wide contracts instead of utilizing many smaller buyers. Category management is often handled through the GSA but other agencies can be involved too, and the overarching goal of using that system is for organizations to find items more efficiently, and also give contractors a better idea of demand for items through use of categories for procurement. But, as we have noted in previous posts, category management has not been a consistent benefit for small business federal contracting, and a goal of President Biden’s administration is to increase small business participation in contracting. As noted by the White House: “an analysis of category management spending since 2017 reveals that ‘socioeconomic firms, a group that includes SDBs, women-owned, service disabled veteran-owned, and HUBZones, have received a proportionally lower share of contracts.'” Consequently, one of the ways the President has tried to increase small business participation in federal contracting, is category management reform and the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-22-03, which further implemented reforms to Category Management, such as implementing a Tier 2-Socioeconomic Small Business (SB) SUM measure, which the DoD appears to reference in its recent memo. In its memo, the DoD states that it will utilize the “DoD component Category Management Leads and Small Business Directors, category management best practices and the application of the Tier 2 Spend Under Management (SUM) credit” with the aim to increase participation by small disadvantaged businesses and other small businesses within DoD procurements. The DoD, through this memo, predicts that using category management will increase contracting opportunities for small disadvantaged business and socio-economic set-asides. DoD also dictates that this goal should be prioritized over “Best in Class” contract goals if both goals are not attainable and the DoD will count Tier 2 SUM credit toward category management goals for awards made to socioeconomic small businesses. This could be a big change for DoD, as it makes clear that small business spending has priority over conflicting Best in Class contract goals. Under an Office of Management and Budget Memorandum from March 2019, Best in Class contracts can count towards Tier 3 spending contracting goals, and some notable Best in Class contracts are CIO-SP3, and all NITAAC GWACs. The DoD’s guidance requesting utilization of category management explicitly states that it is in line with the OMB M-22-03 memo, and asks that DoD entities “analyze realized savings and cost avoidance on current contracts in addition to calculating anticipated savings and cost avoidance on future contract actions.” The DoD also asks that opportunities should be identified to transition away from bundled opportunities that do not use small business set-aside to ones that utilize small business or small business set-asides. The DoD towards the end of their memo states that “success stories of category management should be shared in industry engagement to educate and demonstrate the benefits of this requirements-driven business improvement practice.” So, it appears that the DoD is fully committed to seeing the use of category management be implemented within the DoD, and then throughout federal contracting. The DoD’s intentions are in the right place, by wanting to help increase small business participation in DoD contracts, but continuing to utilize the category management system which has a checkered history among small business federal contracting, may do little to increase small business contractors’ confidence. However, the DoD seems to want to embrace the changes in category management implemented by President Biden, which may take time to show a change in small business participation through category management. Regardless of how this shakes out, contractors should expect a change to DoD oriented contracts going forward, as there will be an emphasis on utilizing this contracting method while also emphasizing small business awards. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post DoD to Utilize Category Management for Procurements, But this time to Increase Small Business Contracts first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Whether we want to or not, the country will continue to feel the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for years to come in a multitude of ways. Many actions were taken by the government in the early days to help United States’ citizens through the largely unprecedented times, particularly to help support small businesses. As I’m sure many small business owners would say, the assistance offered through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program was critical to small business owners who, in the early days of 2020, were suddenly facing an unknown future. As closures and restrictions were put into place from every level of government in a bid to try to protect Americans from the novel virus, hospitals and their staff, doctors, and scientists all scrambled to contain the virus and determine the best path forward. PPP and EIDL applications flooded the SBA in the hopes that the assistance offered through these programs would help to prevent millions of small businesses from sinking under the weight of the pandemic. Unfortunately, the roughly $1.2 trillion in assistance provided by the programs, while good-intentioned and critical to many small business owners’ chances of survival, was not immune to massive levels of fraud. In a report released on January 30, 2023, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) details a breakdown of the fraud, what is being done about it, and safeguards to help prevent it from happening again. SBA logged over 11 million PPP loans by the time the program ceased taking applications in May 2021. These 11 million loans totaled a staggering $800 billion. Additionally, SBA provided over $378 billion in EIDL loans and EIDL grants prior to closing its application period on January 1, 2022. According to the report, one of the factors that made these programs so susceptible to fraud in their early days was the urgency required to support small businesses, stating that SBA initially “used few program controls to verify applicants’ eligibility prior to disbursing funds.” Applicants were permitted to self-certify that they were an eligible business due to the emphasis placed on the speed with which PPP loans were disbursed. Though the lenders of the PPP loans were required to comply with Bank Secrecy Act requirements, there were no measures in place to identify whether the loan recipients were on the Department of the Treasury’s “Do Not Pay” service, and in early 2021, SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) realized the need for additional safeguards. Unfortunately, by the time SBA began requiring lenders to review PPP and EIDL applications with more scrutiny, it was already too late. As of January 2021, the OIG found that nearly 60,000 SBA-backed PPP loans totaling $3.6B were paid to potentially ineligible recipients (although not ineligible for sure). PRAC updated these figures to nearly 70,000 loans totaling $5.4B between PPP and EIDL loans and grants. Shockingly, these figures only included loans and grants that were acquired through identity fraud. It does not include those acquired by submitting false and misleading statements or those that were misappropriated and spent on Lamborghinis and shopping sprees. Further, there were over 175,000 additional EIDL and PPP applications that were attempted but their efforts were thwarted. At this time, PRAC’s Fraud Task Force, the SBA OIG, law enforcement, and the Department of Justice’s COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force are working through those loans identified as being paid to potentially ineligible recipients. So, what does PRAC recommend SBA do to prevent this from happening again? Learn from its mistakes. Yes, really. And enlist the help of the Social Security Administration for identity verification before millions of loans worth billions of dollars are disbursed. You can find the full report from PRAC here. For federal contractors out there, fraud is a big issue in the procurement space as well. This report can serve as a reminder that the OIGs and DOJs of the world are out there, so make sure your ship is in order. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post New Report Unveils Magnitude of Fraud in SBA COVID-19 Relief Programs first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Happy Friday, Readers! We hope you had a great week and are looking forward to a fun Super Bowl Sunday. If you aren’t a Chiefs or Eagles fan, there’s always the food and halftime show to look forward to! Enjoy the weekend. This week in federal government contracting saw an interesting perspective on contracting law and national power, new cloud computing and IT policies and initiatives, and AI potentially helping to write contracts. Government Contracts Law as an Instrument of National Power: A Perspective from the Department of the Air Force [SSRN] DoD builds AI tool to speed up ‘antiquated process’ for contract writing [FedNewsNet] GAO preparing first-of-its-kind estimate of total fraud across all federal programs [FedNewsNet] The long-running FedRAMP program for cloud computing just became law [FedNewsNet] Category management — never quite trusted on the civilian side — comes to Defense acquisition [FedNewsNet] Dynamic Systems Denied $1 Million Army Contract Wage Cost Claim [BlmLaw] Deputy federal CIO: OMB seeks evidence of zero trust progress when deciding which IT projects to fund [FedScoop] White House looks to shore up public trust in government websites [FCW] House panel presses FAA to speed up modernization [FCW] Data Call for Report to Congress on Department of Defense Use of Other Transactions for Prototype Projects Fiscal Year 2022 [DoD] Falmouth Man Sentenced to Five Years for Federal Program Fraud, Wire Fraud [DoJ] Medical Equipment Suppliers Convicted of Health Care Fraud [DoJ] The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 6-10, 2023 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

SAM.gov, short for System for Award Management, is the entry point for federal contractors to interface with the government. So, it is a basic starting point for every federal contractor. But your SAM.gov profile also needs to stay up to date and be up to date at time of bid submission, and failure to keep your SAM profile active can cause problems, even for established contractors. Everyone involved with government contracting knows, or should know, a little bit about registration in SAM.gov. This post walks you through the most important things you should know about registering in SAM.gov. Logins. SAM.gov users must have a login.gov user account. A login.gov account allows users to log into SAM.gov and a number of other government websites. Unlike the old SAM.gov login system, login.gov requires two-factor authentication. This means that you’ll first be required to put in your username and password. After this, login.gov will send a six digit security code to the phone number associated with your account. Don’t wait too long. Each code expires fast. What you need before you register. There are a number of pieces of information (see SAM checklist) you should have on hand before you register, including the following: Entity Organizational Documents. For most entities, you must be registered with a state. The specific documents needed depend on the type of entity, such as LLC or corporation. This handy list shows what documents you will need. If you are a US tax paying entity, you need your Tax Id Number (TIN) and Taxpayer Name. Your TIN can be either an Employer ID Number (EIN) or Social Security Number (SSN) based on your business structure. You can apply for your federal TIN or EIN through the IRS here. Also note: your Taxpayer Name may be different from your legal business name! Make sure you verify the Taxpayer Name on your entity’s 1099, W-2, or W-4 forms. Your CAGE or NCAGE Number, if you already have one. You can check your CAGE/NCAGE number, or request a new one, here. If you don’t have one yet, no worries! You will be automatically assigned one after you register in SAM.gov. Your Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Information. You want to get paid! To do so, you need to provide your bank routing and account numbers. Basic SAM Registration Info. Here are some of the key items you will provide as part of the registration process. Entity information. The SAM checklist includes a lot of information about your entity, including things that you would expect such as name, address, date and state of incorporation. It also includes immediate owner details and more detailed business information. Your Unique Entity ID. Unique Entity IDs (UEI) are 12 character identification numbers associated with each physical location of your business. The UEI is assigned during the SAM registration process. It used to be assigned by a third party company, but that changed in 2022, when the DUNS number was done away with. MPIN. You will create, when you register, a Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN). This is like an ATM pin and should be guarded well. There are many more details needed, so please review the Entity Registration Checklist and have that information handy as well. Providing one or more NAICS codes. We’ve discussed NAICS codes previously on this blog. When you are registering in SAM, you must supply at least one NAICS code associated with your business, but you can include as many as are applicable to you. You must mark only one as your Primary NAICS code however. Still, keep in mind that you can add, remove, or change NAICS codes whenever as your business grows or adapts. You also need to list which NAICS codes and size standards you are small for. TELL THE TRUTH! While this one should be obvious, we cannot stress it enough! When filling out Core Data, you may be required to provide “proceedings data”. Specifically, you must disclose whether the business you are registering (or any of its principals) have been subject to a number of types of legal proceedings related to performance of a Federal contract in the last 5 years. These proceedings include Federal or State (1) Criminal proceedings resulting in a conviction or other acknowledgement of fault; (2) Civil proceeding resulting in a finding of fault with a monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, restitution, and/or damages greater than $5000, or other acknowledgement of fault; and/or (3) Administrative proceedings resulting in findings of faults with either a monetary fine or penalty greater than $5,000 or reimbursement, restitution, or damages greater than $100,000, or other acknowledgments of fault. If you answer yes to any of these, you will be asked to provide additional, detailed information. This information will be made public through FAPIIS. In any case, however, it is best to disclose any relevant information! If you have any question about whether or not disclosure is required, its generally best to disclose. For specific questions on how to appropriately disclose information, you can also talk to a lawyer, like the ones at our firm. In addition to the Core Data section, under the Representations and Certifications portion of your SAM.gov registration, the Government has created a “questionnaire” related to specific FAR and DFARS provisions contractors may have to comply with. These questions include disclosures about recent judgments involving related to government contracts and violating federal criminal tax laws. Your answers will be public here as well, but again, do not try to cover things up! Misrepresenting anything means your pants are likely to set on fire or, in any case, you are subject to facing serious consequences. SAM.gov is not just for entity registration. Entity registration is one big part of SAM, but it is a one stop shop for many other activities involving federal contracting. Another aspect of SAM is that it is the primary federal government website for searching contracting opportunities. But SAM also houses the Federal Procurement Data System, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System, and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System among other federal websites. If you want additional information on registering for SAM.gov, the government has put together a pretty thorough checklist, along with a number of descriptive videos and FAQs. Questions about this post? Email us Need help with a government contracting legal issue? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Back to Basics: Registering in SAM.gov first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

The SBA took over certification of service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and veteran-owned small businesses on January 1, 2023. Soon, all companies will require an SBA certification to qualify as an SDVOSB or VOSB. In this course, Govology Faculty Instructor, Legal Analyst & retired founder of Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, Steven Koprince offers a plain-English look at eligibility under the new SBA certification program. The webinar will cover the SBA’s often-misunderstood “unconditional” ownership requirements, the unique control requirements, and much more. Steven will also debunk some common SDVOSB/VOSB eligibility myths. Register here. The post Govology Webinar: Eligibility Criteria and New Rules for SBA Veterans Certification Program, February 21, 1:00pm EST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

For small businesses and their teammates, few government contracting topics are as confusing as the limitations on subcontracting (LoS) for set-aside and socioeconomic sole-source contracts. And if that isn’t stressful enough, the “LoS” is an area of heavy enforcement: get it wrong, and a contractor can face major penalties. In this webinar, John Holtz and I will help you make sense of the limitations on subcontracting to help ensure that you understand and comply with this essential rule. Please join us for this informative webinar. Register here. The post Govology Webinar: Limitations on Subcontracting: A Step-by-Step Compliance Guide (2023 Update), February 16, 1:00PM EST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Happy Friday, Readers! Hope you have been having a great week and a great start to February! Around these parts, we’re getting geared up for another exciting Super Bowl with our hometown Chiefs and the anticipation is building. We hope you had a great week and our looking forward to a very nice weekend. We have included a few articles of interest concerning federal government contracting below. Of special note is a new contract management standard and a priority for small business engagement in DoD contracts. Enjoy! Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Update of Challenge Period for Validation of Asserted Restrictions on Technical Data and Computer Software (DFARS Case 2022-D016); Extension of Comment Period [FedReg] Tampa Man Sentenced To Over Three Years In Prison For Fraudulently Using Federal GSA Smartpay Account Numbers [DoJ] Increased contract spending a boon for small businesses [FedNewsNet] Civilian federal agencies to adopt new contract management standard [FedScoop] DOD instructs acquisition teams to prioritize small business engagement over best-in-class contracts [FCW] DOD Announces the Establishment of the Defense Management Institute [DoD] Guidance on Awarding Cost-Reimbursement Contracts [DoD] Prompt Payment Interest Rate; Contract Disputes Act [FedReg] Big questions continue to swirl around CMMC in 2023 [FedNewsNet] GSA to start collecting letters of attestation from software vendors in mid-June [FedScoop] House lawmakers want VA’s $20 billion-plus electronic health record program to improve or else [FCW] DOD’s open cyber recommendations date back to 2012 [FCW] Industry voices complaints over short response window for $60B VA recompete [FCW] The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 30- February 3, 2023 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Late 2022, the president signed a law that would increase what contractors have to reveal about potential organizational conflicts of interest. The law is called the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act. Below, we highlight some of the main things contractors should out look for based on this new law. The law was signed on December 27, 2022 to enhance the rules for organizational conflicts of interest (OCI). It was hailed by its bipartisan authors as providing “updates to existing rules to protect the integrity of services while allowing contractors to continue pursuing business opportunities to the greatest extent possible.” “Before Washington doles out billions of dollars to government contractors, we need to make sure these organizations don’t have outside business interests that conflict with their work for our taxpayers,” said Senator Ernst. The goals of the law, as specified by its drafters, include: Disclosing business relationships with entities that could cause conflict with federal contract work. Disclosing new potential business that could conflict with ongoing services. Enhancing awareness of OCI disclosure requirements and impacts on other parts of a company’s operations. Requiring federal agencies to update procedures for determining whether OCIs exist. Here are a few of the key provisions. Timing. The law requires a FAR update within 18 months of its passage, meaning the FAR update should arrive by June 27, 2024. Updates to OCI Definitions The law asks the FAR Council to update definitions and examples related to OCIs. It states that the FAR must update “definitions related to specific types of organizational conflicts of interest, including unequal access to information, impaired objectivity, and biased ground rules.” These examples must touch on issues involving “public, private, domestic, and foreign entities.” OCI Examples Congress would really like the FAR to focus on additional examples, asking for: illustrative examples of situations related to the potential organizational conflicts of interest identified under this paragraph, including an example of the awarding by a Federal regulatory agency of a contract for consulting services to a contractor if employees of the contractor performing work under such contract are permitted by the contractor to simultaneously perform work under a contract for a private sector client under the regulatory purview of such agency[.] Now, to be sure, there are already examples in the OCI rules in FAR subpart 9.5. For instance, FAR 9.508 lists a handful of examples, such as An agency that regulates an industry wishes to develop a system for evaluating and processing license applications. Contractor X helps develop the system and process the applications. Contractor X should be prohibited from acting as a consultant to any of the applicants during its period of performance and for a reasonable period thereafter. However, these examples don’t address the specific issue of work involving a “private sector client”–an example specifically called out in the new law. Clearly, the FAR will be updated to address how private sector work, not just work for the federal government, could lead to an OCI. OCI Disclosures In addition, the law requires additional solicitation and contract clauses: “to provide executive agencies with solicitation provisions and contract clauses to avoid or mitigate organizational conflicts of interest, for agency use as needed, that require contractors to disclose information relevant to potential organizational conflicts of interest and limit future contracting with respect to potential conflicts of interest with the work to be performed under awarded contracts.” This seems to suggest additional disclosures on the part of contractors are on the horizon. OCI Procedures The law requires agencies to “to establish or update as needed agency conflict of interest procedures to implement the” law and “periodically assess and update such procedures as needed to address agency-specific conflict of interest issues.” This seems to encourage additional procedures specific to each agency, although what Congress is calling for will be left up to each agency. One specific requirement is for agencies to “update the procedures set forth in section 9.506 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation to permit contracting officers to take into consideration professional standards and procedures to prevent organizational conflicts of interest to which an offeror or contractor is subject.” This would seem to allow contractors to point to professional standards to determine if a situation represents an OCI. As of now, FAR 9.506 commands contracting officers to review OCIs, but without a lot of guidance on how to do so, although it does mention reviewing “Non-Government sources [such as] publications and commercial services, such as credit rating services, trade and financial journals, and business directories and registers.” The new OCI law will result in big changes to the FAR rules on OCIs. It’s tough to predict exactly how the rules will change, but the FAR Council will definitely add in more examples of OCIs, procedures to address them, and a special emphasis on private sector contracts. We’ll look for the proposed regulation and update you when it comes out. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post New OCI Law Focuses on Private Sector Contracts, More Examples, More Procedures first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

We are excited to announce that Gregory Weber and his wife, Melissa, along with big brother Isaac, have a new family member! Gabriel Weber was born on January 17, 2023, weighing 7lbs. 13 oz. Everyone is doing well. Congratulations Weber family! The post A Very Joyful Announcement from Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC! first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

The SBA’s HUBZone Program, short for “Historically Underutilized Business Zone,” is likely the SBA program that we hear the least about. Tucked away in Title 13, Section 126 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, the HUBZone Program gives HUBZone participants benefits in multiple federal government contracting situations in an effort to revitalize historically underutilized business zones through increased employment opportunities, investments, and economic development. So, what exactly makes an area a HUBZone, and how can your small business be designated as a HUBZone participant? Read on to find out. What are HUBZones? As its title suggests, HUBZones are areas that are determined to historically show low business development. HUBZones are located in low-income areas as a bid to increase business development, employment opportunities, and economic growth. There are many factors that go into determining which areas should be designated as a HUBZone, with the criteria from the most recent census guiding the requirements. Most often, the areas that are designated as HUBZones fall into either inner city or rural areas that are low-income, underutilized, and underdeveloped, but they may also be Qualified Disaster Areas and Governor’s Designated Areas. The HUBZone map is reevaluated every five years using the U.S. Census data to ensure the areas that need help the most are appealing to business owners. ALERT: The next update to the HUBZone map will occur on July 1, 2023. SBA has a preview of this map, so be sure to check if your business will be affected by any changes. As SBA says: “Check this preview of the HUBZone map now to determine whether your principal office and employees will still be located in a HUBZone once the new map goes into effect on July 1, 2023. Your firm’s eligibility to participate in the program might be impacted on July 1, 2023, if your principal office is located, or your employees reside, in an area that will no longer qualify as a HUBZone.” “Certified HUBZone firms that are no longer eligible on July 1, 2023 due to the map change may continue to participate in the HUBZone program through their following annual recertification.” How can my business be certified as a HUBZone small business? The requirements for HUBZone small business certification are a little bit different than what you see from the SBA’s other contracting programs. This is because a HUBZone participant’s eligibility is generally not tied to an individual. Rather, the SBA looks to collective ownership, size, principal office location, and the area in which its employees reside. Notably, a business may be certified as a HUBZone small business concern as long as it continues to comply with the HUBZone regulations. Ownership: HUBZone certified concerns must be at least 51% owned by one or more of the following: United States citizens; Alaska Native Corporations or a wholly owned business entity of an Alaska Native Corporation; Indian Tribal Governments or a corporation that is wholly owned by one or more Indian Tribal Governments; Certified Development Company; Small agricultural cooperatives organized or incorporated in the United States; or Native Hawaiian Organization. Size: As with all other categories of SBA recognized small businesses, HUBZone businesses, including any affiliates, must be small under the size standard corresponding to its primary industry classification, and small under one or more NAICS Codes in which it does business. As you can see, ownership requirements and size are fairly similar to requirements of other SBA contracting programs. However, as shown below, principal office and employees are two areas that are quite different. Principal Office: Principal office location is vitally important for participation in the HUBZone Program. Where other SBA contracting programs only generally require a principal office to be within a reasonable distance from where work is being performed, to ensure the disadvantaged owner is able to perform its oversight duties as required, HUBZone Program participants must have their principal located within a designated HUBZone. Because the goal of the HUBZone Program is to revitalize certain areas, participants that make long-term investments in HUBZones, by continually maintaining a lease or ownership of the property, will be deemed to keep its principal office in a HUBZone for at least 10 years. Employees: The employee requirements for HUBZone participants are probably the most unique requirement of any SBA contracting program. Other programs are only concerned with whether employees have the ability, exercised or not, to control the participant, usurping the disadvantaged or key owner’s control. HUBZone rules, rather, are not concerned with employees’ ability to control. Instead, a HUBZone participant must have at least 35% of its employees residing within a HUBZone. Participants must also certify that it will attempt to maintain the 35% requirement throughout performance of any HUBZone contract, and those that fall between 20% during contract performance will be determined to have failed to attempt to maintain the HUBZone residency requirements. What are the benefits? So, you may be asking, “what benefits do HUBZone participants receive?” Well, I’m glad you asked. As with other SBA programs, contracts may be set-aside for HUBZone participants, both through competitive set-asides and as sole-source awards. Federal agencies have a contracting goal of 3% HUBZone procurements, but this goal has not been met even once in the past 18 years, making the HUBZone Program one that has great potential for growth for both the HUBZone Program itself and HUBZone participants. In addition to set-asides, HUBZone participants receive the benefit of a 10% price evaluation preference when participating in full and open competition. This means that, in most situations, contracting officers must add 10% to all offers that will be evaluated on price, that are received through full and open competition, that did not come from HUBZone participants or other small businesses. This often results in the HUBZone participants having more competitive evaluated prices than large businesses. As you can see, the SBA’s HUBZone Program can have some serious benefits for small businesses that meet the criteria. As the only program that does not depend on a disadvantaged individual as the owner, it can assist those small businesses that don’t qualify for the 8(a) Program, Woman-Owned Small Business Program, or Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Program. Not only will the small business benefit from the certification, but the area in which the business is primarily located will also receive substantial benefits; a quality that is not reflected in other SBA programs. SBA’s HUBZone Program rules can be found at 13 C.F.R. § 126.100, et seq. Interested in more information on agency HUBZone contracting requirements, and measures taken to increase agency’s use of HUBZone small businesses, visit this report from the Congressional Research Service. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Back to Basics: Get in the Zone, The HUBZone first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

In federal procurement law, it is often the case that decisions on protests and other cases come down to tough questions of law that could go either way, requiring the judge to carefully weigh the reasons for making ruling one way or another. Unfortunately, there are also cases where the decision can rest entirely on responding to a request, even one that gives the contractor little time to respond. Regardless of the situation, it can’t be overstated how crucial it is to respond timely to any requests, and make sure your company’s agents and representatives make the response their priority. In this case, this lesson was learned the hard way by one contractor. In July 2022, the Army issued a solicitation under NAICS code 236220, Commercial and Industrial Building Construction, which had a receipts-based size standard of $39.5 million. VMJR Companies LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6184, 2023 (Jan. 12, 2023). VMJR Companies, LLC (“VMJR”) made a successful bid for award and was quickly thereafter the subject of a size protest from one of the other offerors on September 9, 2022. On September 14, 2022, the Area Office asked VMJR to submit, among other documents, its tax returns for the preceding three years. VMJR did submit its own tax returns as requested. However, on September 20, 2022, the Area Office, noting a number of potential affiliates for VMJR, asked for the tax returns from 2017 through 2021 for VMJR and these other potentially affiliated companies. VMJR was given until September 22, 2022 (only two days) to submit these documents, and reminded that failure to do so might result in a finding that VMJR was not a small business. VMJR stated it would provide these returns once it received them from its accountant. On September 22, 2022, the Area Office reminded VMJR that the requested returns were due. That same day, after the Area Office’s business hours, VMJR responded, explaining that, among other things, that a number of the companies did not have individual tax returns, and that it would provide the returns as soon as it got them from its accountant. The Area Office responded that same evening asking VMJR to provide the tax returns by noon the next day. VMJR ended up not providing the returns. On September 26, the Area Office issued its determination finding that VMJR was not a small business. The Area Office explained that it had asked VMJR to provide tax returns for 2017 through 2021 for several entities. VMJR had not provided these tax returns, even with the extension of time the Area Office gave it. Therefore, the Area Office applied an adverse inference that the missing information would have shown that VMJR was not small. 13 C.F.R. §§ 121.1008(d) and 121.1009(d). The adverse inference rule, by the way, is that if a company does not send requested documents, SBA will presume that the documents would contain information that is adverse to the company’s position. Elite Construction Management Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5565 (June 10, 2014). VMJR appealed, stating that it was only given two business days to provide the tax returns and that it “was at the mercy of the accounting firm’s response time.” VMJR noted it repeatedly requested the tax returns from its accountant and besides, it was not given enough time to respond, even with the extension. It also noted that its point of contact had limited access to email on the 23rd, and so he did not see the extension email. OHA rejected VMJR’s arguments. First, it noted that an adverse inference in this situation was proper, as the tax returns were vital to the size determination, were something that VMJR could have acquired, and that the Area Office’s request was clear and understandable. As for VMJR’s arguments, OHA observed “it was Appellant who failed to check this email on September 23, 2022 and failed to request an extension of time to submit them before or thereafter” and that VMJR’s “neglect in monitoring its own email communications does not excuse him for failing to provide the requested information, nor can it be said to be the source of error on the part of the Area Office.” As for the argument that the Area Office’s demand was unreasonable: “While Appellant argues that the deadline to respond to such a demand was unreasonable and inadequate, and the untimely submission was due to the accountant’s delay, I cannot find the Area Office committed error, when the Area Office communicated to Appellant the information sought, the deadline to submit them, and the consequences when failing to do so. As the regulations require the Area Office to issue a formal size determination within 15 business days after receipt of a protest, if possible, I cannot find that the Area Office was acting capriciously or unreasonably.” The decision in this case reemphasizes a point that can’t be stressed enough: Always respond in a timely manner to requests from SBA. While the Area Office’s deadline for responding was quite short, even considering its own deadline for issuance of a size determination, the agency did at least give an extension. Certainly, VMJR should have at least tried to make a request for an extension itself. When the agency itself didn’t make a mistake, the onus generally is going to be entirely on the contractor to meet the response deadline. What also stands out is an important practical lesson. VMJR’s accountant quite simply failed VMJR. We can’t speak to the specifics of the accountant’s situation, but there is no mention of the accountant responding to VMJR or reaching out to SBA to try to explain what’s going on. And, frankly, considering electronic storage, we don’t see how it would have been such a challenge for the accountant to simply forward VMJR the requested tax returns. On the other hand, we don’t really know if the companies had actually filed tax returns, or if the accountant was even holding copies of the returns. The point, in any event, is that who you choose to represent your company matters, be it your accountant, your consultants, and, yes, your attorneys. Never take this decision lightly, and do not let anyone pressure you into making a decision. Your company’s future may very well depend on it. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance with a government contracting legal issue? Call us at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Failure to Send: Protester Loses Size Determination Due to Lack of Response on Tax Returns first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

Happy Friday, Readers. The Kansas City Chiefs secured another win on Saturday and have moved forward into the AFC Championship game. I think everyone in town had on their Chiefs gear last weekend. It was a sea of red. With temperatures predicted to be in the 20’s on Sunday, it will be a cold one in Kansas City for the big game! Brr. We hope you had a great week and can grab a game or two this weekend and root for your favorite team. We have included some noteworthy articles below on federal government contracting, including SBA moving to a new certification platform and enhancing training for contracting officers. Enjoy the weekend and Go Chiefs! SBA takes over certifying vet-owned small business from VA as part of CX overhaul [FedNewsNet] The Federal Government Can Use Its Buying Power to Help the Environment and Save Taxpayers Money [GovExec] Procurement transformation: Why agencies need to leverage digital purchasing forums [FedNewsNet] How Prevalent is Fraud in Federal Programs? We Take a Look—Focusing on Unemployment Insurance Oversight [GAO] Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting (FAC-C) Modernization [EOP] Lawmakers want GAO to assess risk of government contractors working for China [FCW] Contractors have differing views on that non-compete proposed rule [FedNewsNet]. While not specific to federal contractors, it would still affect them. OPM draws wrath of House Oversight and Accountability Committee, and a roundup of other federal contracting news [FedNewsNet] GAO calls on Energy Department to bolster competition for management contracts [FCW] GSA’s Workplace Innovation Lab opens to federal agencies [GAO] The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 23-27, 2023 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

This Congressional report, issued December 27, 2022, provides a “discussion of acquisition flexibilities federal agencies may use to facilitate the government’s response to and recovery from disasters and emergencies.” The report explains the various types of flexibilities and some of the pros and cons of each. And it concludes by identifying several significant issues related to these acquisition flexibilities. Let’s take a look. As the report states: Federal procurement is an essential component of the federal government’s response to disasters, emergencies, and other types of incidents. Procurement data for federal government spending related to past hurricanes and wildfires and the COVID pandemic show that it has acquired a broad array of goods and services—from engineering and satellite services to office supplies and dump trucks—over the years to aid in response and recovery efforts. The report explains that “there is no single acquisition method or process for buying goods and services[,]” and the selection of which method to use is typically left up to the contracting officer–so long as the contracting officer follows applicable statutes and regulations. And the report states: When buying goods or services to be used in recovering from or responding to an emergency or disaster, a contracting officer determines, for example, whether to use full and open competition, set aside the procurement for small businesses, or use simplified acquisition procedures. (The same is true for acquisitions not related to an emergency or a disaster.) To assist contracting officers in making such decisions, in 2007, acquisition officials added a new Part 18 to the FAR, which is “a single reference to acquisition flexibilities that already exist in other parts of the FAR.” FAR subpart 18.1 lists the generally available acquisition flexibilities, which are not contingent on any executive action. And FAR subpart 18.2 lists the emergency acquisition flexibilities, which “may be used only when the appropriate official has made an emergency declaration or designation.” There are, of course, many benefits to using the FAR Part 18 flexibilities, such as “acquiring goods and services in a more timely and efficient manner than might occur otherwise.” But there are also significant risks to doing so, such as potentially impaired accountability. According to the report, the hope is that the considerations of the benefits and risks “might prompt Congress to consider whether existing acquisition flexibilities are sufficient or how federal agencies could balance additional or enhanced acquisition flexibilities with the need to safeguard the government’s interests.” Acquisition Flexibilities, An Overview In its overview of acquisition flexibilities, the report explains that it is “[t]he absence of a standardized process coupled with the existence of acquisition flexibilities” that allow “contracting officers to adapt to the unique needs associated with each disaster or emergency.” And it is up to the contracting officers to determine which, if any, such acquisition flexibilities they will use in acquiring the goods or services needed to timely and efficiently fulfill the agency’s requirements. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a report documenting the federal response to COVID-19, acknowledged the importance of procurement to the government’s response to the pandemic–while also addressing some of the challenges: Our prior work has found that contracts play a key role in federal emergency response efforts, and that contracting during an emergency can present a unique set of challenges as officials can face a significant amount of pressure to provide critical goods and services as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. These acquisition flexibilities no doubt enable agencies to provide goods and services in a timely and more efficient fashion than they may otherwise be able. But their use does not come without risk. As the report states: Possible consequences include reduced transparency, less accountability, limited or no competition, and higher costs. For example, undefinitized contract actions, such as letter contracts, can be useful when an agency must move quickly to award a contract. Generally, it may take less time to draft a letter contract (or other types of undefinitized contracts) because these types of contractual agreements do not include all of the terms and conditions usually found in a procurement contract. As GAO explained, the downside to using such undefinitized contract actions is that they can pose certain other risks to the government. For example, one such risk occurs when “contractors lack incentives to control costs before all contract terms and conditions are defined.” Indeed, GAO reported: Undefinitized contracts transfer additional cost and performance risks from contractors to the government because contracting officers normally reimburse contractors for all allowable costs they incur. With all allowable costs covered, contractors bear less risk and have little incentive to control costs. The government also risks incurring unnecessary costs as requirements may change before the contract is definitized. According to the report, the “extent of the risk to the federal government may depend, at least in part, on the specific circumstances surrounding the use of any acquisition flexibilities.” And as such, the report then takes a deeper dive into the two subparts of FAR Part 18, Generally Available Acquisition Flexibilities and Emergency Acquisition Flexibilities. Generally Available Acquisition Flexibilities There are 26 generally available acquisition flexibilities, again, set forth in FAR subpart 18.1. The report discussed a few of those, including Noncompetitive Procedures based on Unusual and Compelling Urgency. These noncompetitive procedures can be substituted for the generally required “full and open competition” requirements for seven different reasons. One of them is when the agency determines there is “unusual and compelling urgency.” This process allows the contracting officer to exclude certain sources from the procurement. And the rules also state that this process removes the requirement for the agency to post a synopsis of its proposed contract action. Additionally, where the agency asserts unusual and compelling urgency, it is not required to stay award or performance as a result of GAO protest. And finally, in using the unusual and compelling circumstances flexibility, the agency can waive certain SAM registration requirements. Another general acquisition flexibility discussed in the report is Oral Requests for Proposals. Generally, FAR 5.201 requires solicitations be posted on SAM.gov when the value exceeds $25,000. But this exception in the rules allows an oral request for proposals when “processing a written solicitation would delay the acquisition of supplies or services to the detriment of the Government and a notice is not required under [FAR] 5.202 (e.g., perishable items and support of contingency or other emergency situations).” Advanced Payments is another flexibility discussed by the report. FAR 32.405 allows designated agencies that take actions “to facilitate the national defense” to make advance payments under contracts awarded using sealed bidding procedures or negotiated contracting procedures. And the President may authorize such advance payments as well. Yet another general acquisition flexibility covered by this report is Letter Contracts. Generally, contracting officers must use a uniform contract format outlined by the FAR. But FAR 16.603 explains that, in certain circumstances, such as disasters or emergencies, the contracting officer may instead use a letter contract, which is a “written preliminary contractual instrument that authorizes the contractor to begin immediately manufacturing supplies or performing services.” The letter contract is an undefinitized contract, often missing some of the terms and conditions usually included in a definitized contract. A letter contract may be used when (1) the Government’s interests demand that the contractor be given a binding commitment so that work can start immediately and (2) negotiating a definitive contract is not possible in sufficient time to meet the requirement. However, a letter contract should be as complete and definite as feasible under the circumstances. Interagency Acquisitions are discussed as an additional general flexibility. The FAR defines interagency acquisitions as follows: means a procedure by which an agency needing supplies or services (the requesting agency) obtains them from another agency (the servicing agency), by an assisted acquisition or a direct acquisition. The term includes—(1) Acquisitions under the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535); and (2) Non-Economy Act acquisitions completed under other statutory authorities, (e.g., General Services Administration, Federal Supply Schedules in subpart 8.4 [of the FAR] and Governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs)). Essentially, one agency (the servicing agency) acts on behalf of the requesting agency in an assisted acquisition. The report explains that this could be a situation where a requesting agency places orders directly against the servicing agency’s procurement vehicle (i.e. GSA’s FSS, a multi-agency BPA, or a multi-agency IDIQ), which the servicing agency manages the vehicle. The final general flexibility discussed in the report is Contracting with Certain Types of Small Businesses on a Sole Source Basis. This one is pretty self-explanatory, and it is often an attractive option during disasters and emergencies. When certain conditions are met, the contracting agency can make sole source awards to certain socioeconomic certified small businesses (i.e. HUBZone small businesses, SDVOSBs, etc.) before considering small business set asides. Per the FAR, awarding a contract on a sole source basis means “a contract for the purchase of supplies or services … is entered into or proposed to be entered into by an agency after soliciting and negotiating with only one source.” That is all the report covered as far as generally acquisition flexibilities go. Remember those flexibilities, though often subject to specific terms and conditions, do not require an executive action to be invoked. The report next turned to the emergency acquisition flexibilities, which do require executive action to be invoked. Emergency Acquisition Flexibilities As the FAR explains, these emergency acquisition flexibilities are only available in specific circumstances. It says: Emergency acquisition flexibilities, as used in this part, means flexibilities provided with respect to any acquisition of supplies or services by or for an executive agency that, as determined by the head of an executive agency, may be used – (a) In support of a contingency operation as defined in 2.101; (b) To facilitate the defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack against the United States; (c) In support of a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance; or (d) When the President issues an emergency declaration, or a major disaster declaration. And the report focused on two of these emergency acquisition flexibilities in its discussion. The first one is the Stafford Act Preference for Local Firms and Individuals. To use this flexibility, first, the President must declare a major disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). When that happens, agencies must “give a preference, ‘to the extent feasible and practicable,’ to local entities and individuals when contracting for supply distribution, debris clearance, reconstruction, and other types of major disaster or emergency assistance.” To enforce this, contracting officers may use local set-asides or an evaluation preference. And a justification must be provided whenever an emergency response contract is not awarded to a local entity or individual if this flexibility is invoked. The other emergency acquisition flexibility discussed in the report is Increases in the Micro-Purchase Threshold and Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The FAR explains that these thresholds can be raised where the The threshold increases when the head of the agency determines the supplies or services are to be used to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster. Once this finding is made: the micro-purchase threshold can be raised (from $10,000 to $20,000, for contracts awarded and performed in the U.S., and $30,000 for those outside the U.S.); the simplified acquisition threshold can be raised (from $250,000 to $800,000, for contracts awarded and performed in the U.S., and $1.5 million for those outside the U.S.); “contracting officers may treat any acquisition of supplies or services as an acquisition of commercial items.”; and the simplified acquisition threshold for purchases of commercial items increases from $7.5 million to $15 million. * * * The report concludes by reiterating the federal government’s “significant role in helping individuals, communities, and regions respond to and recover from disasters and emergencies, [as] reflected in the amounts of funds it has spent on a broad variety of goods and services over the years.” But it also reiterates some of the risks involved in these acquisition flexibilities. And as such, it poses some important and insightful questions for consideration. First, it asks whether these currently available acquisition flexibilities are “sufficient for procurement of essential goods and services during a disaster or emergency situation in a timely and efficient fashion[,]” and “[i]f not, what could be done differently?” It also asks if it would benefit the federal procurement world to have “a more detailed and/or prescriptive statutory and regulatory framework specific to disasters and emergencies[,]” and “under what circumstances would such a framework be activated?” As a third question, the report contemplates which “steps, if any, might the federal government take to balance the need to streamline the procurement process in the event of a disaster or an emergency with the need to safeguard the government’s interests and funding[,]” and in implementation of those steps, which tradeoffs should be considered acceptable. Finally, the report asks for ways in which the government might “boost transparency and accountability in emergency procurements without impeding agencies’ efforts to buy essential goods and services?” These are all excellent questions that many contractors likely found themselves asking these last few years. We don’t have perfect answers at this time. But it is important to discuss the risks, benefits, and competing principles of emergency acquisitions to ensure our government’s goal of balancing these risks, benefits, and principles stays at the forefront. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Congressional Research Service Report Discusses Emergency-Related Acquisition Flexibilities, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article

You’ve served your country with pride. Now, as a government contractor, it’s only fair that you get your piece of the pie. Previously, we here at SmallGovCon have discussed the 5 things you should know regarding SDVOSBs and VOSBs. But in the years since that, much has changed in the world of SDVOSBs and VOSBs. So here are five updated basics you should know about the government’s contracting program for veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses: What is a veteran-owned small business? As its name implies, a veteran-owned small business (or “VOSB”, in government-contracting speak) is a small business that is at least 51% unconditionally owned and controlled by a veteran. A service-disabled veteran-owned small business (“SDVOSB”) is a small business that is 51% unconditionally owned and controlled by a service-disabled veteran. These definitions sound relatively simple at first blush, but there are many nuances in the law. Just because a small business is 51% owned by a veteran doesn’t necessarily make it an SDVOSB or VOSB in the eyes of the government. The government currently runs its SDVOSB and VOSB program through the SBA. Previously, there was a separate program run through the VA, but the VA’s program went away on December 31, 2022. Now, SBA’s regulations and program governs all VOSB and SDVOSB certifications. Who “controls” the business? Control can be a subjective concept. But to control the business, the veteran or service-disabled veteran, as the case may be, must exercise unconditional authority over the company’s day-to-day affairs and long-term strategic decision-making. Again, it’s important to be aware of regulatory nuances. For example, the SBA’s regulations generally require the veteran to work full-time for the company to meet the unconditional control requirement. The SBA and VA have interpreted unconditional control quite strictly: they require the veteran to essentially be the end-all and be-all within the company, with unfettered discretion over some of the most consequential decisions. However, there are five situations laid out by SBA regulation that will allow for the veteran to not have absolute control. These are: 1) Adding a new equity stakeholder; 2) dissolution of the company; 3) sale of the company or all assets of the company; 4) the merger of the company; and 5) the company declaring bankruptcy. In addition, a recent rule change allows for rights of first refusal for non-veterans. The rules now state: “A right of first refusal granting the non-qualifying-veteran the contractual right to purchase the ownership interests of the qualifying veteran, does not affect the unconditional nature of ownership, if the terms follow normal commercial practices.” 13 C.F.R. § 128.202. What’s the benefit? SDVOSBs and VOSBs are given some important preferences in government contracting. The most significant of these preferences is at the Department of Veterans Affairs: the VA must, in some cases, set aside work for either SDVOSBs or VOSBs. In other cases, the VA can award SDVOSBs or VOSBs sole source contracts. For non-VA agencies, only SDVOSBs (not VOSBs) are entitled to a contracting preference, although VOSB status can be helpful in more limited cases, like helping large prime contractors reach their subcontracting goals. Non-VA agencies, however, can set aside solicitations for SDVOSBs, and issue sole source awards to SDVOSBs in limited circumstances. Overall, the government aims to award at least 3% of prime contract dollars annually to SDVOSBs. The government surpassed that goal in Fiscal Year 2021, awarding SDVOSBs contracts worth more than 4% of Prime Contracts, representing $25.0 billion in contracts. Can a business challenge my status? Yes. If an SDVOSB or VOSB is given a contract under a contracting preference (or “set-aside” as we call it in Government Contracting speak), a disappointed offeror can challenge the awardee’s status as a veteran-owned small business. Losing a challenge means that your business will lose its award. These challenges are a double-edged sword. Not only does this mean that a competitor might dispute your eligibility, but you can also dispute that of a competitor that wins a contract. So if a business challenges your status—or if you believe that one of your competitors might not be eligible—make sure you can navigate the regulations to help protect your interests. How can your business apply? This used to be quite complicated with multiple certification avenues that needed to be completed. However, as of January 2023, the SBA will be the one-stop shop for application and certification. As you may know, we here at SmallGovCon have been tracking this change for quite some time. (For background on the rule change check out these articles: “Congress Approved Government-wide SDVOSB Certification Requirement; Transfers CVE to SBA,” “SBA Issues Final Rule on SDVOSB Certification,” and “SBA Provides Answers on Vets Certification Program Roll-Out in Q&A Session“) The SBA provides some background information on SDVOSBs and VOSBs on its website, and certification is completed through SBA’s veterans.certify.sba.gov. It’s essential to do your due diligence before self-certifying. Incorrectly self-certifying can carry significant penalties—ranging from losing the award to being debarred. Historically, verification processes such could take several weeks and involve some back-and-forth—in fact, we’ve seen cases in the past under the old certification model where the VA relied on outdated regulations to question a joint venture’s eligibility, when the joint venture agreement was fully compliant with current regulations. Under the SBA’s new process, there could be some hiccups, but hopefully SBA will get things workings smoothly in short order. If you’re considering seeking verification for your small business (or joint venture), act fast—and get help. For even more of the basics on SDVOSB and VOSBs, check out our post from last year, “Back to Basics: Veteran-Owned Businesses and SDVOSB Eligibility.” *** Veterans deserve our respect and gratitude for the selfless service. The SDVOSB and VOSB contracting preferences are but one small way our country can begin to repay this debt. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. This post updates an earlier post on SmallGovCon. The post Back to Basics: Top Five Things About SDVOSBs and VOSBs first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article