Jump to content


Photo

OMB to GAO: Get lost!


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#101 joel hoffman

joel hoffman

    P.E., DBIA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Following God, Family, Sailing, Motorcycling, Hunting, Volleyball; Acquisition, Source Selections, Contract Administration, Construction, Design-Build Construction, mods, claims, TFD, TFC, project controls,

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:03 AM

Read these. Note the dates on the letters.

http://www.pubklaw.c...i/hubzone22.pdf

http://www.pubklaw.c...i/hubzone21.pdf



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.c...i/hubzone22.pdf[/url was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at www.pubklaw.com Port 80"

#102 bremen

bremen

    Copper Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:52 AM

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.c...i/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.

#103 federalcontracts

federalcontracts

    Copper Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:59 PM

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?

#104 Vern Edwards

Vern Edwards

    Platinum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,097 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted 27 August 2010 - 06:19 AM

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.

#105 brian

brian

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CO NUS

Posted 28 August 2010 - 03:25 AM

.
Oh. Expert on contracting, and knows a little about human nature, too ?
.

#106 Vern Edwards

Vern Edwards

    Platinum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,097 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted 28 August 2010 - 09:43 AM

Every human knows a little about human nature.

#107 Postaward

Postaward

    Copper Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 24 February 2011 - 03:26 PM

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/fc...pen=dsen-8e7pjh.


The AF tried.

#108 joel hoffman

joel hoffman

    P.E., DBIA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Following God, Family, Sailing, Motorcycling, Hunting, Volleyball; Acquisition, Source Selections, Contract Administration, Construction, Design-Build Construction, mods, claims, TFD, TFC, project controls,

Posted 24 February 2011 - 05:03 PM

Read these. Note the dates on the letters.

http://www.pubklaw.c...i/hubzone22.pdf

http://www.pubklaw.c...i/hubzone21.pdf


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?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users