Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Training
    • Class Registration
    • On-demand Training
  • Useful Links
  • Team Directory
    • Albany Counselor
    • Atlanta Counselors
    • Augusta Counselor
    • Carrollton Counselor
    • Columbus Counselor
    • Gainesville Counselor
    • Savannah Counselor
    • Warner Robins Counselor
  • Directions
    • Atlanta – Training Facility
    • Atlanta – Office
    • Albany
    • Augusta
    • Carrollton
    • Columbus
    • Gainesville
    • Savannah
    • Warner Robins
  • New Client Application
  • Contact Us

GTPAC launches Veterans verification video

May 16, 2019 By Nancy Cleveland

The Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (“GTPAC”) has created a new free training resource for Veteran small business owners.  GTPAC, with the support of the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”), has produced a free video that provides a detailed explanation of how Veterans can get their small business verified as a Veteran-Owned Small Business (“VOSB”) or Service-disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (“SDVOSB”) under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) Vets First Verification Program.

SDVOSBs and VOSBs receive certain preferences in the federal procurement process, including SDVOSB and VOSB set-aside contracts, sole-source awards (for SDVOSBs), and subcontracting opportunities with federal prime contractors, who are often required to utilize SDVOSBs and VOSBs in their subcontracting plans.

“This video is a great resource for helping VOSBs and SDVOSBs understand the verification process at VA, and how they can benefit from getting verified,” said Andrew E. Smith, Program Manager of the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center, he continued, “We take great pride in assisting our Veteran small business clients here in Georgia, and want them to take full advantage of the opportunities that are available to them.”

Each year, the federal government awards billions of dollars in contracts to VOSBs and SDVOSBs.  Federal prime contractors also frequently subcontract work to VOSBs and SDVOSBs when performing large government contracts.

GTPAC hopes this video helps Veterans understand the verification process, and makes that process a little bit easier.

Additional resources including links to key VA Verification websites is available on the Veterans Verification Video page.

Filed Under: GTPAC News Tagged With: SDVOSB, service disabled, verification, Verification Assistance Brief, veteran-owned, veterans, Veterans First, VOSB

In VA procurements, veteran-owned businesses trump all other contractors

October 22, 2018 By Nancy Cleveland

On October 17, 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”) must give priority to veteran-owned small businesses (“VOSB”) when awarding contracts.  (PDS Consultants Inc. v. U.S., et al., Nos. 17-2379 and 17-2512, 2018 WL 5019735 – Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2018).

At first blush, no one would argue with the foregoing statement.

But, this mandate became less clear when the VA was faced with awarding a contract to a VOSB or following an otherwise mandatory requirement for all federal agencies to buy a specific list of items made by nonprofits employing the blind and significantly disabled.

Here is the source of confusion. More than 40 years ago, Congress enacted the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (“JWOD”), which required federal agencies to buy certain items and services from nonprofits that employ the blind or people with other significant disabilities. Today, this mandatory procurement policy is implemented through the AbilityOne program.

In 2006, Congress passed the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act (“VBA”). As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Kingdomware, the VBA made it mandatory in almost every procurement for the VA to follow the “Rule of Two.” The “Rule of Two” requires the VA to award a contract to a VOSB whenever at least two VOSBs can perform the work at a reasonable price.

Keep reading this article at: https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2018/10/18/in-department-of-veterans-affairs-procurements-veteran-owned-businesses-trump-all-other-contractors

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: AbilityOne, JWOD, Kingdomware, rule of two, SDVOSB, service disabled, small business, VA, veteran owned business, Veterans First

New consolidated SDVOSB eligibility requirements: The good, the bad, and the downright ugly

October 8, 2018 By Nancy Cleveland

This article was written by Steve Koprince who is the author of the book entitled “The Small-Business Guide to Government Contracts.”

New, consolidated SDVOSB eligibility regulations kicked in on October 1.

The new regulations replace the old VA and SBA rules, which provided separate eligibility standards for SDVOSBs.

Veterans have long been confused by the fact that the Government operated two separate SDVOSB programs, each with its own standards.  The consolidated rule will eliminate that confusion, and that’s a very good thing.  There are also several other pieces of the new SDVOSB eligibility rule that veterans should like–but also some that aren’t so great, or that require further clarification as to how they’ll be applied.

My colleague Matt Schoonover provided a broader overview of the new regulations earlier last week.  Now it’s time for me to get on my soapbox.  Without further ado, here’s my list of the good, bad, and the downright ugly from the new SDVOSB regulations.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/new-consolidated-sdvosb-eligibility-requirements-the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-ugly

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: SBA, SDVOSB, service disabled, VA, veteran owned business

VA using SBA’s SDVOSB eligibility rules starting Oct. 1st

October 1, 2018 By Nancy Cleveland

The VA will begin using the SBA’s eligibility rules to verify service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) and veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) beginning October 1, 2018.

In a final rule published Sept. 24th in the Federal Register, the VA confirms that the SBA’s eligibility requirements will apply beginning next week–but in my eyes, one very important question remains unanswered.

As regular SmallGovCon readers know, the differences between the government’s two SDVOSB programs have caused major headaches for veterans.  Because the two sets of regulations have different eligibility requirements, a company may be an eligible SDVOSB under one set of rules, but not the other.

In 2016, Congress addressed the problem.  As part of the 2017 NDAA, Congress directed the VA to verify SDVOSBs and VOSBs using the SBA’s regulatory definitions regarding small business status, ownership, and control.  Congress told the SBA and VA to work together to develop joint regulations governing SDVOSB and VOSB eligibility.  The VA published a proposed rule earlier this year to eliminate its separate SDVOSB and VOSB eligibility requirements.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/va-will-use-sba-sdvosb-eligibility-rules-starting-october-1-2018/

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: NDAA, SBA, SDVOSB, service disabled, VA, verification, veteran owned business, VOSB

Comments due Mar. 12 on proposed changes to VA’s VOSB program

January 17, 2018 By Nancy Cleveland

The January 10, 2018, edition of the Federal Register, contains a proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that would amend the VA’s regulations governing its Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Program.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be submitted on or before March 12, 2018.

The proposed rule is designed to implement §1832 of Public Law 114-840, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017, which placed responsibility for issuing regulations relating to ownership and control for the verification of Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) with the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

VA’s proposed regulation will remove all references to ownership and control and seeks to add and clarify certain terms and references that are currently part of the VA’s verification process.  The NDAA also requires, in certain circumstances, that a firm may qualify as a VOSB or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) when there is a surviving spouse or an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).

The NDAA provisions designate the SBA as the federal agency responsible for creating regulations governing ownership and control. As regulations relating to and clarifying ownership and control are no longer the responsibility of VA, the VA is proposing to remove six definitions that relate to and clarify ownership and control. Specifically, VA is proposing to remove the following definitions: Day-to-day management, day-to-day operations, immediate family member, negative control, the same or similar line of business, and unconditional ownership. In addition, the VA is proposing to remove one additional definition, VetBiz.gov, in anticipation of changes to the location of the Vendor Information Pages database.

In addition, the VA is proposing to amend the definition of Center for Veterans Enterprise by changing the term to Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) to reflect the name change effectuated at 78 FR 59861, on September 30, 2013. The definition of CVE would be further amended to reflect the change to the functions of CVE office to verification activities. The last sentence of the definition will be removed to clarify CVE’s function.

A list of the VA’s proposed changes appears below:

  • Amend the definition of “joint venture” to conform to the amendments to 13 CFR part 125 as it pertains to SDVOSB joint ventures.  The VA has also added language to clearly address the current policy by indicating that at least one venturer must be a VOSB.
  • Amend the definition of “Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization” to more accurately reflect the role fulfilled by this office with respect to VOSB matters.
  • Amend the definition of “non-veteran” to remove the reference to VetBiz, as VA is considering moving the site which hosts the Vendor Information Pages database.
  • Amend the definition of a “participant” to emphasize CVE’s role in verifying status.
  • Amend the definition of “primary industry classification” to make a technical change to use the acronym NAICS as it has already been defined in a parenthetical earlier in the definition.
  • Amend the definition of “principal place of business” to change “day to day operations” to “daily business operations” in order to match the wording in 13 CFR 125.13.
  • Amend the definition of “service-disabled veteran” as the current definition has led to confusion regarding the documentation necessary to establish a service-connected disability. The VA says this change would also help increase program efficiency by specifically referencing BIRLS, the system that allows CVE to quickly and accurately determine veteran status.
  • Amend the definition of “service-disabled-veteran-owned small business concern” to align the definition with the definition for “small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans” proposed by SBA in the amendment to 13 CFR 125.11.
  • Amend the definition of “small business concern” to align the definition with the definition for “small business concern” proposed by SBA in the amendment to 13 CFR 125.11.
  • Amend the definition of “surviving spouse” to reorder existing language and incorporate additional requirements outlined in the NDAA. The amended definition would provide that immediately prior to the death of the deceased veteran the concern must have been owned and controlled in accordance with 13 CFR part 125 and the concern was listed in VIP.
  • Amend the definition of “Vendor Information Pages” to replace the reference to the website http://www.VetBiz.gov with the website that is the successor to VetBiz.gov and allow for CVE to make reasonable and necessary adjustments without the need for an amendment of the regulation.
  • Remove the definition of Vetbiz.gov to account for anticipated changes to the location of the Vendor Information Pages database.
  • Amend the definition of “verification eligibility period” to reflect the current eligibility period of 3 years, which was effectuated via publication in the Federal Register on February 21, 2017 at 82 FR 11154.  Additionally, a technical change would amend the reference to “Center for Veterans Enterprise” by replacing it with the abbreviation CVE.  A final technical change would replace the word “year” with “eligibility period” to agree with the change in the first sentence.
  • Amend the definition of “Veteran” to add a reference to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). This revised definition is meant to be inclusive of all persons who served on active duty and were discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable. Historically, the program has had an issue wherein applicants who did, in fact, qualify as veterans under the statutory definition, did not meet the standards outlined in § 74.1. This change is not intended to create a new class of Veteran, but rather to clarify that those who are eligible under the applicable statutes will be found eligible for participation in this program.
  • Amend the definition of “Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation” to remove the term U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and replace it with the abbreviation for VA as previously defined in § 74.1.
  • Amend the definition of “Veteran-owned small business,” in accordance with the NDAA, to reflect that stock owned by ESOPs which in turn are owned by one or more veterans are not included in determining requisite ownership percentage, and to use the abbreviations that have been previously defined in § 74.1.
  • Amend § 74.2 by revising paragraphs (a)-(e) and adding a new paragraph (g). In both 2010 and 2012, GAO published reports tasking VA with reducing potential instances of fraud, waste, and abuse. VA has found in its administration of the verification program that the use of the procedures identified in § 74.2 protects VA acquisition integrity and diminishes ongoing exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse. Therefore, for such limited situations as identified in § 74.2, and only in these limited instances, VA finds that immediate removal from the public listing is warranted in order to protect the integrity of VA procurement. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to § 74.2 would serve to more comprehensively outline the circumstances under which a participant would be found ineligible for the VOSB Verification program.
  • Amend § 74.2(a) to add the clause “submitted required supplemental documentation at http://www.va.gov/ osdbu to clearly explain the key steps necessary to submit an application and obtain verification.”  Additionally, a technical change would be made to use the abbreviated form “CVE” for consistency.
  • Amend § 74.2(b) to address the impact of criminal activity on eligibility and thus better protect the government from fraud, waste, and abuse. The title would be amended to reference the System for Award Management (SAM), which has replaced the Excluded Parties List System. Additionally, the language of the first sentence would be amended to address the impact of 38 U.S.C. 8127(g)(3), which now VA authority to exclude all principals in the business concern. Accordingly, the language of § 74.2 would be amended to specify that the debarment of any individual holding an ownership and control interest in the concern will impact the concern’s eligibility.
  • Amend § 74.2(c) by adding the phrase “false statements or information” to reference the title and provide further clarification on the eligibility requirements. The removal provision would be additionally reworded to clarify that removal is immediate. Finally, a technical change would remove the word “the” before CVE in the last sentence.
  • Amend § 74.2(d) by including tax liens and unresolved debts owed to various governmental entities outside of the federal government as financial obligations that would disqualify an applicant for inclusion in the VIP database.  The title would be additionally amended to reflect this change. If after verifying the participant’s eligibility, CVE discovers that the participant no longer satisfies this requirement, CVE will remove the participant from the VIP database in accordance with § 74.22. Finally, a technical change would remove the word “VetBiz” before verification in the last sentence.
  • Amend § 74.2(e) to clarify the consequences of SBA protest decisions and other negative findings. “Other negative findings” will additionally be clarified by specifically referencing status protest decisions. A technical change would remove the word “VetBiz” before verification throughout. The title of this section would additionally be amended to clarify this section is not limited to SBA decisions. In order to properly capture the impact of negative findings, § 74.2(e) would continue to clarify removal is immediate. The second sentence would be amended to take into account “other negative findings.”
  • Amend § 74.2(f) to specifically reference the System for Award Management (SAM) registration. SAM is a consolidated listing of previous databases and was not in existence at the time the original regulation was created and therefore was not referenced. Registration through SAM is required by 48 CFR 4.1200 as supplemented by 48 CFR 804.1102.
  • Amend § 74.3(a) to reflect that ownership is determined in accordance with 13 CFR part 125 as the result of the amendments to Title 38 of the United States Code as set forth in the NDAA.
  • Amend § 74.3(e) to redesignate this paragraph as § 74.3(b) to account for the removal of paragraphs (a)-(d). VA is proposing to amend § 74.3(b)(1) by a technical change to replace “application” with “VA Form 0877” in order to clarify the requirement and conform language to the rest of the regulation.
  • Amend § 74.3(b)(1) to add a 30-day time period for submission of a new application after a change in ownership. This change would provide CVE the ability to definitively and accurately track changes of ownership. Further, by adding a time period for a new application, the program would be better able to comply with its statutory mandate to verify that all concerns listed in the VIP Database meet the prescribed ownership and control requirements of the verification program.
  • Amend § 74.3(b)(3) by a technical change to replace “application” with “VA Form 0877” in order to clarify the requirement and conform language to the rest of the regulation.
  • Amend § 74.4(a) to state that control is determined in accordance with 13 CFR part 125 pursuant to the NDAA. Paragraphs (b)-(i) would be removed.
  • Amend § 74.5 to include joint ventures. The paragraph would additionally be reworded to clearly establish that 38 CFR part 74 does not supersede 13 CFR part 121 with respect to size determinations. VA is proposing to add paragraph (b) to specifically address the eligibility of joint ventures. Subparagraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would be added to provide notice of applicable requirements outlined elsewhere in VA regulation.
  • Amend § 74.10 to remove reference to the physical address for CVE. Addresses or methods for submission may change over time, and this change allows CVE to make reasonable and necessary adjustments without the need for an amendment to the regulation. This section would be further amended to remove the word “VetBiz” before verification, and change “located” to “contained” in the last sentence for better clarity. Finally, a technical change would remove the word “the” before CVE in the last sentence.
  • Amend § 74.11 to redesignate paragraphs (c)-(g) to account for the addition of new paragraph (c). The VA is proposing to amend § 74.11(a) to accommodate a more veteran-friendly, customer service centric approach to processing applications. “Center for Veterans Enterprise” would be changed to “CVE” and “[t]he CVE” would be changed to “CVE.”  Additionally, the VA is proposing to amend § 74.11(a) to incorporate the term “application days” and to increase the review period to 90 application days, when practicable, to accommodate time spent between registering for verification and the time that all required documentation is received and the application is deemed complete.
  • Amend § 74.11(c) to address instances where CVE does not receive all requested documentation.  The VA must verify applicants prior to admission in the database. In order to comply with the statute, the VA requests documentation to demonstrate eligibility. This proposed revision would notify the public that failure to adequately respond to document requests may render CVE unable to verify the eligibility of a concern and therefore may result in a denial or administrative removal.
  • Amend § 74.11(c) to be redesignated as § 74.11(d) and to make a technical change to insert a reference to the newly added paragraph (c).  Additionally, the reference to paragraph (d) would be changed to paragraph (e) to account for the redesignation. VA is proposing to add the term “totality of circumstances” to clarify longstanding CVE interpretation and procedure. References to § 74.11(b) and § 74.13(a) would be added to highlight all applicable exceptions. Finally, a last sentence would be added to clarify the longstanding policy that the applicant bears the burden of establishing VOSB status.
  • Amend § 74.11(d) to be redesignated as § 74.11(e). The first and second sentences would be amended by removing the word “adversely.” The third sentence would be removed as it refers to withdrawal or removal of verified status. This scenario will be addressed in § 74.21, which specifically deals with how participants can exit the VIP database. Therefore, the removal would help to eliminate redundancy and reduce the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, VA is proposing to add § 74.11(e)(1) to specifically address bankruptcy as a changed circumstance. Subparagraphs (a)-(c) would be added to outline requirements applicable to firms undergoing the bankruptcy process.
  • Amend § 74.11(e) to be redesignated as § 74.11(f).
  • Amend § 74.11(f) to be redesignated as § 74.11(g).
  • Amend § 74.11(g) to be redesignated as § 74.11(h). A second sentence would be added to increase program efficiency by requiring firms to provide updated contact information. This would allow the program to use the most efficient methods to dispatch determinations and ensure that applicants will receive determinations in a timely manner.
  • Amend § 74.12 to expand the list of required documentation in order to provide the public notice of documentation that is routinely requested by CVE. This amended list would include documents previously referenced by § 74.20(b). While the documents would still be required for examination as described in § 74.20(b), they also are initially required for the application. As the application is a concern’s first exposure to the process, VA finds this list would be more appropriately placed in this § 74.12 to notify the public of the documentary requirements. Additionally, “electronic form” would be changed to “VA Form 0877” throughout for clarity. Similarly, “attachments” would be changed to “supplemental documentation” throughout. Finally, the last two sentences would be removed for clarity.
  • Amend § 74.13 to modify the title and to remove references to the previous reconsideration process, to include removing paragraphs (b)-(d). In accordance with the NDAA, appeals of initial denials on the grounds of ownership and control will be adjudicated by SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) in accordance with 13 CFR part 134. Accordingly, Section 74.13 (a) would be amended to refer to the appeal process set forth in 13 CFR part 134.
  • Amend § 74.13(e) to be redesignated as § 74.13(b). The VA is further proposing to modify this section to reflect the removal of the reconsideration process and to remove the phrase `service-disabled veteran’ as the term veteran is now used to refer to both veterans and service-disabled veterans throughout. The VA is proposing to delete paragraphs (f) and (g) as they are no longer relevant to the process.
  • Amend § 74.14 to remove references to requests for reconsideration and to include notices of verified status cancellation and denials of appeals in the list of determinations that trigger a waiting period before a concern may submit a new verification application. Including denial of appeals takes into consideration any appeal filed with OHA that sustains the initial denial letter issued by the CVE. The program has instituted several procedures through policy to assist applicants to identify and address easily correctable issues that render the applicant ineligible. Therefore, the class of notices listed in § 74.14 are issued to applicants with substantial issues in their business structure or underlying documentation that result in ineligibility.
  • Amend § 74.14 to be redesignated as § 74.14(a). A new paragraph § 74.14(b) would be added to clarify that a finding of ineligibility during a reapplication will result in the immediate removal of the participant. VA only intends, to the extent practicable, to list as verified in the VIP database concerns which currently meet verification requirements. This proposed change would clarify current policy and serve the important purpose of assisting contracting officers in the procurement process by ensuring the database only includes concerns that are eligible for an award of set aside procurements. A final technical change removes the word “VetBiz” before verification throughout.
  • Amend § 74.15(a) by splitting the paragraph into paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). A technical change would be made to what would be redesignated as § 74.15(a) to improve specificity. A change would be made to what would be redesignated as § 74.15(b) to require participants to inform CVE within 30 days of changes affecting eligibility, consistent with § 74.3(f)(1). A substantive change would be made to the list that would be redesignated as § 74.15(c), which would be expanded to include all situations in which the eligibility period may be shortened. VA is proposing to remove § 74.15(b) because it deals with affiliation and would, therefore, be addressed in § 74.5. Therefore, any shortening of the eligibility period due to an affiliation determination would result from an SBA determination. This scenario would be addressed by § 74.2(e) and is referenced appropriately at what would be designated § 74.15(c). A technical change would remove the word “VetBiz” before verification throughout. Finally, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) would be redesignated as (d), (e), and (f) respectively. The redesignated § 74.15(e) will be amended to reference immediate removals pursuant to § 74.2.
  • Amend the first three sentences of § 74.20(b) for simplicity and clarification. In the first sentence, the phrase, “or parts of the program examination” would be removed. In the second sentence, “location” would be changed to “location(s)”. In the third sentence, the word “[e]xaminers” is changed to “CVE”. As the proposed revisions to § 74.12 would fully address the required documentation necessary for verification the complete list would be removed from § 74.20 in order to avoid redundancy and confusion. A final technical change removes the word “VetBiz” before verification throughout.
  • Amend § 74.21 to reorder for clarity and to conform with changes made to other sections of this Part. VA is proposing to amend § 74.21(a) by a technical change to remove reference to the “verified’ status button” in order to reflect the current graphical user interface of the VIP database. Additionally, “Vendor Information Pages” would be changed to “VIP.”
  • Amend § 74.21(b) by changing “Vendor Information Pages” to “VIP.”
  • Amend § 74.21(c) by referencing the immediate removal provisions established by and clarified in § 74.2. VA is proposing to amend § 74.21(c) and associated subparagraphs to be redesignated as § 74.21(d) and associated subparagraphs. Additionally, reference to the “verified’ status button” would be removed to reflect the current graphical user interface of the database.
  • Remove § 74.21(c)(5) as involuntary exclusions would now be addressed in § 74.2.
  • Amend § 74.21(c)(6) to be redesignated as Section 74.21(d)(5) to account for deletion of § 74.21(c)(5). Additionally, the phrase “or its agents” would be added to clarify who may request documents, and the words “a pattern of ” will be deleted to clarify the requirements necessary to remove a company for failure to provide the requested information. In the past, establishing a pattern of failure has led to ineligible firms maintaining verified status for an extended period of time by failing to provide requested documentation. This change would help CVE protect the integrity of the procurement process while still providing firms notice and opportunity to be heard prior to cancellation.
  • Amend § 74.21(c)(7) to be redesignated as § 74.21(d)(6) to account for deletion of § 74.21(c)(5).
  • Remove § 74.21(c)(8) as the action addressed by that provision would now be addressed in § 74.2.
  • Amend § 74.21(c)(10) to be redesignated as § 74.21(d)(7). The term “application” would be removed as VA Form 0877 reflects current program requirements.  “60 days” would be changed to “30 days” to conform with revised § 74.3(f)(1).
  • Add § 74.21(d)(8) to notify the public that failure to report changed circumstances within 30 days is in and of itself good cause to initiate cancellation proceedings.
  • Amend § 74.21(d) to be redesignated as § 74.21(e).
  • Amend § 74.22(a) to begin the relevant 30-day time period on the date on which CVE sends notice of proposed cancellation of verified status. This change would provide the agency the ability to definitively and accurately track the cancellation proceedings. Additionally, this change would provide the agency the ability to control the regulatory time period and consistently apply the subsequent provisions of the paragraph.
  • Amend § 74.22(e) to implement the new appeals procedure to OHA prescribed in the NDAA.
  • Amend § 74.25 to replace “the Department” with “VA”.
  • Amend § 74.26 to reflect the amended title of § 74.12.
  • Amend § 74.27 to reword the first sentence to specify that all documents submitted to the program, not only those used to complete applications, will be stored electronically. Additionally, the “Vendor Information Pages” would be changed to “CVE” in order to clearly denote who will be in possession of the documents and responsible for their retention. The location reference would be removed due to the electronic nature of the records to be maintained by the program. The second sentence would be revised to indicate that any owner information provided will be compared to any available records. Finally, references to records management procedures to be followed and procedures governing data breaches would be added.
  • Amend § 74.28 to replace “Department of Veterans Affairs” and “Center for Veterans Enterprises” to VA and CVE respectively.
  • Amend § 74.29 to refer to VA’s records management procedures, which would govern, absent a timely written request from the Government Accountability Office.

The Federal Register website where comments may be submitted is located at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/10/2017-27715/va-veteran-owned-small-business-vosb-verification-guidelines?utm_campaign=subscription%20mailing%20list&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email#open-comment

Remember, comments are due not later than March 12, 2018 at 11:59 PM EDT.

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: CVE, Federal Register, public comment, SBA, SDVOSB, service disabled, VA, verification, VetBiz, veteran, veteran owned business, veterans, VIP, VOSB

Indictment in $40 million alleged fraud case signals increased scrutiny of SDVOSB contractors

January 3, 2018 By Nancy Cleveland

On December 1, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the federal grand indictment of an army veteran for allegedly engaging in major government program fraud by using his status as a service-disabled veteran to obtain contracts set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), despite the fact that he did not control the management and daily operations of the company to which the contracts were awarded.

In the case, U.S. v. Dial Jr., the veteran has been charged with four counts of major program fraud as well as wire fraud in connection with his company United Medical Design Builders, LLC (“UMDB”) receiving over $40 million in government contract funds from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers between 2008 and 2015.

Specifically, the Government alleged that Dial, who is a disabled Army veteran, acted only as a “figurehead” of UMDB in order for UMDB to obtain a SDVOSB set-aside contract to build health care facilities.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9b298da1-560e-43ad-86b2-2768bc5ba765

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, ACE, Army Corps of Engineers, DOJ, fraud, front, Justice Dept., Kingdomware, rule of two, SBA, SDVOSB, service disabled, sham, VA, veteran owned business, VOSB, wire fraud

U.S. fraud case ends in mistrial for two Little Rock businessmen

September 18, 2017 By Nancy Cleveland

A mistrial was declared late Thursday afternoon (Sept. 14, 2017) in a major fraud case against Little Rock businessmen Ross Alan Hope and Mikel Kullander, after a federal jury announced it was hopelessly deadlocked on the charges.

The jury had deliberated half a day Wednesday and all day Thursday. Its foreman told U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes about 2 p.m. Thursday that the panelists couldn’t agree on a unanimous verdict, and Holmes encouraged the group of 12 to return to the deliberations room and keep trying.

But three hours later, jurors announced that they still didn’t have a consensus and didn’t see the situation changing.

In keeping with the rules of federal court, the jury was prevented from telling Holmes which and how many charges they could and couldn’t agree on, and how many jurors favored conviction or acquittal.

Keep reading this article at: http://m.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/sep/15/u-s-fraud-case-ends-in-mistrial-for-2-m/

UPDATE:  A retrial of Little Rock businessmen Ross Alan Hope and Mikel Kullander is now set for Oct. 16.  See: http://m.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/sep/16/federal-retrial-set-in-disabled-vet-cas-1/

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, corruption, CVE, fraud, IG, SDVOSB, service disabled, VA

Another big win for vets: SDVOSBs trump AbilityOne at VA, court rules

June 15, 2017 By Nancy Cleveland

The VA cannot buy products or services using the AbilityOne List without first applying the “rule of two” and determining whether qualified SDVOSBs and VOSBs are available to bid.

The May 30, 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in PDS Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1063C (2017) resolves – in favor of veteran-owned businesses – an important question that has been lingering since Kingdomware was decided nearly one year ago.  The Court’s decision in PDS Consultants makes clear that at VA, SDVOSBs and VOSBs trump AbilityOne.

The Court’s decision involved an apparent conflict between two statutes: the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act, or JWOD, and the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, or VBA.

As SmallGovCon readers know, the VBA states that (with very limited exceptions), the VA must procure goods and services from SDVOSBs and VOSBs when the Contracting Officer has a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from two or more qualified veteran-owned companies at fair market prices.  Last year, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed, in Kingdomware, that the statutory rule of two broadly applies.

The JWOD predates the VBA.  It provides that government agencies, including the VA, must purpose certain products and services from designated non-profits that employ blind and otherwise severely disabled people.  The products and services subject to the JWOD’s requirements appear on a list known as the “AbilityOne List.”  An entity called the “AbilityOne Commission” is responsible for placing goods and services on the AbilityOne list.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/another-big-win-for-vets-sdvosbs-trump-abilityone-at-va-court-rules/

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: AbilityOne, applicability, COFC, Court of Federal Claims, JWOD, Kingdomware, SDVOSB, service disabled, VA, VBA, veteran owned business, VOSB

WWE’s McMahon still standing after positive confirmation hearing for SBA role

February 1, 2017 By Nancy Cleveland

An advocate for the underdog is what small businesses can expect if Linda McMahon is confirmed as the Small Business Administration’s new leader.

McMahon is President Donald Trump’s pick for SBA administrator, and she is perhaps most famous as a founder and CEO for the WWE —  her daughter and son-in-law, both professional wrestlers, sat in the audience behind her at her Jan. 24 confirmation hearing

During her appearance before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, McMahon pledged her support to level the playing field for women, service-disabled veterans and minority small business owners looking to contract with the federal government.

Asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) about how she planned to work with federal agencies to increase small business opportunities for contracts, McMahon said her first step would be to understand the projects themselves, then find the best fit and helping hand for a particular business.

Keep reading this article at: http://federalnewsradio.com/management/2017/01/wwes-mcmahon-still-standing-positive-confirmation-hearing-sba-role/

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: federal contracting, federal contracts, minority owned business, SBA, SDVOSB, service disabled, small business

Construction company owner, Kansas City veteran indicted in ‘rent-a-vet’ scheme

January 18, 2017 By Nancy Cleveland

VA-LogoThe former owner of a local construction company and a Kansas City veteran were indicted by a federal grand jury Friday, Jan. 13, 2017 for their roles in a “rent-a-vet” scheme to fraudulently obtain more than $13.8 million in federal contracts.

Jeffrey K. Wilson, 51, of the Village of Loch Lloyd in Belton, MO Paul R. Salavitch, 56, of Kansas City and Patriot Company, Inc., a business located in Kansas City were charged in an eight-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Kansas City.

The indictment alleges that Wilson, Salavitch and the Patriot Company participated in a conspiracy to defraud the government by falsely representing Patriot Company as a veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small business in order to fraudulently obtain approximately $13.8 million in federal government construction contracts for work in nine states.

According to the indictment, Patriot Company was a pass-through or front company for a Greenwood, MO construction company owned by Wilson during the scheme. Conspirators allegedly used Salavitch’s veteran and service-disabled veteran status in a “rent-a-vet” scheme to bid on at least 20 government contracts and receive approximately $13.8 million to which Patriot Company would not have otherwise been entitled to receive because those contracts were set-aside exclusively for legitimate veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. As a result of the fraud scheme, legitimate veteran owned and run businesses were not awarded these contracts.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/66085/

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, Army, fraud, indictment, SDVOSB, service disabled, set-aside, VA, veteran owned business, VOSB

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 7
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • Contractors must update EEO poster
  • SBA scorecard shows federal government continues to prioritize small business contracting
  • The risk of organizational conflicts of interest
  • The gap widens between COFC and GAO on late is late rule
  • OMB releases guidance related to small business goals

Popular Topics

8(a) abuse Army bid protest budget budget cuts certification construction contract awards contracting opportunities cybersecurity DoD DOJ False Claims Act FAR federal contracting federal contracts fraud GAO Georgia Tech government contracting government contract training government trends GSA GSA Schedule GTPAC HUBZone innovation IT Justice Dept. marketing NDAA OMB SBA SDVOSB set-aside small business small business goals spending subcontracting technology VA veteran owned business VOSB wosb

Contracting News

SBA scorecard shows federal government continues to prioritize small business contracting

OMB releases guidance related to small business goals

OMB issues guidance on impact of injunction on government contractor vaccine mandate

Changes coming to DOD’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification under CMMC 2.0

Judge issues nationwide injunction halting enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Read More

Contracting Tips

Contractors must update EEO poster

The risk of organizational conflicts of interest

The gap widens between COFC and GAO on late is late rule

Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?

CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors

Read More

GTPAC News

VA direct access program events in 2022

Sandia National Laboratories seeks small business suppliers

Navy OSBP hosting DCAA overview (part 2) event Jan. 12, 2022

Navy OSBP hosting cybersecurity “ask me anything” event Dec. 16th

State of Georgia hosting supplier systems training on January 26, 2022

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Undergraduate enrollment growth reflects inclusive excellence

Georgia Tech delivers $4 billion in economic impact to the State of Georgia

Georgia Tech awards first round of seed grants to support team-based research

Georgia Tech announces inaugural Associate Vice President of Corporate Engagement

DoD funds Georgia Tech to enhance U.S. hypersonics capabilities

Read More

  • SAM.gov registration is free, and help with SAM is free, too
APTAC RSS Twitter GTPAC - 30th Year of Service

Copyright © 2023 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute