Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

I couldn't connect to either of these links on either my Blackberry or my computer. Are the links good?

"Not Found

The requested URL /hi/hubzone22.pdf"]http://www.pubklaw.com/hi/hubzone22.pdf[/url was not found on this server.

Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at www.pubklaw.com Port 80"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't connect to either of these links on either my Blackberry or my computer. Are the links good?

"Not Found

The requested URL /hi/hubzone22.pdf"]http://www.pubklaw.com/hi/hubzone22.pdf[/url was not found on this server.

Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at www.pubklaw.com Port 80"

They were good when posted (I read the files) but now I am getting an HTTP 404 error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh-oh. He's back. Rested and ready to fight for the dispossessed.

You persist in mocking either the term "dispossessed" or the actual dispossessed, though I don't know which or why.

You're like the Johnny Friendly of the parity issue. What's in it for you? Why do you care so much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I was mocking you.

Why do I care so much? I explained that in Post #5, Post #8, and Post #10 of this thread, and in following posts. I started this thread, and my issue was GAO's protest authority, not the parity policy.

The COFC is probably right in its plain language approach to statutory interpretation, although we won't know that for sure until the Federal Circuit rules.

As for the "dispossessed" genus, by which you mean HUBZoners--cheats seem to be evenly dispersed among the small business family. I don't see any reason to give priority to one species over the others. If anybody has earned special treatment, it's the service disabled vets, but I've learned that there are many cheats in that species as well. I understand the objective, and it's a noble one, I suppose. But the creation of special categories with special privileges seems to naturally give rise to zealots, liars and crooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COFC Awards Attorneys' Fees; Air Force

Unreasonably Interpreted Small Business Act

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims Feb. 15 awarded a contractor $37,227 in attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in connection with the Air Force's violation of the Small Business Act (DGR Associates Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cl., No. 10-396C, 2/15/11).

Judge Thomas C. Wheeler found that the Air Force's position was not substantially justified in the underlying litigation, holding that DGR Associates Inc. did not waive its right to bring suit and rejecting the argument that the Air Force was not required to give priority to Historically Underutilized Small Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns.

DGR prevailed in its bid protest against the Air Force's award of housing maintenance, inspection, and repair services at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

The court's injunction required the Air Force to terminate the contract award and apply the statutory HUBZone preference in a new or revised solicitation (94 FCR 206, 8/24/10). DGR then applied for attorneys' fees under the EAJA.

The court said DGR satisfied the EAJA's timeliness and net worth and size requirements for receiving an award. It also held that DGR was a prevailing party under the EAJA because it succeeded on all of its arguments concerning the Air Force's failure to apply the statutory preference for HUBZone small business concerns.

The court then said the Air Force's litigation position was not substantially justified.

Waiver Argument Was ?Patently Unreasonable.'

The Air Force argued that DGR had waived its right to bring suit by not filing its action prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. The court held, however, that because DGR followed applicable protest procedures, diligently pursued its challenge, and prevailed at the Government Accountability Office, it would be unjust to dismiss DGR's protest.

?By any measure, Defendant's waiver argument was patently unreasonable and not substantially justified,? the court held.

Small Business Act Requirement is Unambiguous

The Air Force also argued that the interpretation of the Small Business Act and its implementing regulations was a novel issue, and therefore its position was substantially justified.

However, the court found the statute's wording and existing case law precedent to be unambiguous. When DGR filed suit in June 2010, multiple courts and the GAO uniformly had held the Small Business Act unambiguously required the HUBZone program to receive preference over other small business programs.

In addition, the court explained that had the Air Force simply chose to follow GAO's decision, DGR's lawsuit would have been unnecessary. The Air Force was unreasonable in putting DGR to additional effort and expense given the clear statutory language, the court said.

Finally, the court said the government's position was unreasonable due to the lack of any legislative history contrary to the statute's plain language.

As a result, the court awarded DGR attorneys' fees and costs.

http://op.bna.com/fcr.nsf/r?Open=dsen-8e7pjh.

The AF tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't access these URL's and don't know what they contained. Vern, do you or anyone else know

Where they can be viewed? What were the subjects or jist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand this long thread correctly, the issue was about whom in the federal government has the authority to 1) Interpret a law and 2) Tell that "interpreter" when they are incorrect. That is an interesting issue. It appears the subject interpretation was (is?) broad enough to where the contracting officer could decide what they wanted to do anyway. Does anyone know the current status for the subject interpretation? I wonder if the GAO will challenge other interpretations where even the FAR appears to go beyond the statutory provision (e.g. "of-a-type" stand-alone commercial services).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned long ago that statutes, regulations and contracts mean what the courts say they mean. GAO is not a court. Its decisions are only recommendations. However, the Court of Federal Claims later issued a bid protest decision agreeing with the GAO on the preference accorded HUBZone contracts. Congress then got in on the act and amended the HUBZone statute changing "shall" to "may" and established parity among the small business contracting programs. This is reflected in FAR 19.203.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×