Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Training
    • Class Registration
    • On-demand Training
    • GTPAC COVID-19 Resource Page
    • Veterans Verification Video
    • Other Training Audio & Video
  • 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
  • COVID-19
  • New Client Application
  • Contact Us

CVE verification pointer: remember to provide truthful information

July 17, 2019 By Andrew Smith

In government contracting—as in life—it’s important to be honest.  And in our experience, most government contractors are honest.  Where a contractor is dishonest or untruthful, it can face significant sanctions.

So it was in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, in which the OHA considered the cancellation of an entity’s SDVOSB status.  In CVE Appeal of Afily8 Government Solutions, LLC, SBA No. CVE-125-A (2019), the OHA affirmed the cancellation of Afily8’s SDVOSB verification based on concerns that Afily8 did not provide truthful information to the VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation.

Continue reading at:  SmallGovCon

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: CVE, OHA, SBA, SBA OHA, SDVOSB, VA Verification, verification, VOSB

GTPAC launches Veterans verification video

May 16, 2019 By Andrew Smith

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

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

October 1, 2018 By Andrew Smith

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

SBA reiterates that VetBiz verification is not required for non-VA SDVOSB contracts

September 10, 2018 By Andrew Smith

Despite a longstanding and very common misconception, the VA’s SDVOSB verification requirement doesn’t apply to non-VA SDVOSB contracts.

As the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals recently reiterated, it was “simply not correct” to believe that a company was required to be verified in VetBiz to be awarded a non-VA SDVOSB contract.

Confusingly, the federal government currently runs two SDVOSB programs: one under the VA’s rules and the other under the SBA’s.

  • The SBA’s program (which is the “original” SDVOSB set-aside program) is authorized by the Small Business Act, which is codified in Title 15 of the U.S. Code and implemented by the SBA in its regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
  • The VA’s separate program is codified in Title 38 of the U.S. Code and implemented by the VA in Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/vetbiz-verification-not-required-for-non-va-sdvosb-contracts-sba-oha-reiterates/

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: CVE, OHA, SBA, SDVOSB, VA, verification, VetBiz

Former company owner sentenced for $13.7 million ‘rent-a-vet’ scheme

September 4, 2018 By Andrew Smith

A former operator of a Kansas City construction company, Patriot Company, Inc., was sentenced in federal court last week for his role in a “rent-a-vet” scheme to fraudulently obtain more than $13.7 million in federal contracts.

Jeffrey K. Wilson was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison without parole. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Wilson has also consented to the federal civil forfeiture of approximately $2.1 million.

On Jan. 31, 2018, Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of government program fraud. Co-defendant Paul R. Salavitch pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of making a false writing and awaits sentencing.

Wilson, who is not a veteran, managed the day-to-day operations and the long-term decision-making of Patriot Company from September 2005 to January 2014. Wilson and Salavitch falsely certified that Salavitch, who is a service-disabled veteran, was involved in the day-to-day operations of Patriot Company. Salavitch’s purported active management qualified Patriot Company to obtain set-aside contracts to which it was not entitled.

Wilson admitted he used Salavitch’s veteran and service-disabled veteran status in a “rent-a-vet” scheme to obtain 20 government contracts for which Patriot Company received more than $13.7 million.  As a result of the fraud scheme, legitimate veteran-owned-and-run businesses were not awarded these contracts. In one instance, according to court documents, Wilson brazenly challenged the government’s award of a set-aside contract to a service-disabled veteran bidder and Patriot Company fraudulently obtained that contract.

Wilson’s plea agreement cites 20 contracts with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Army, which were fraudulently obtained by Wilson, Salavitch and Patriot Company. The contracts, which ranged as high as $4.3 million, included construction projects in Missouri, South Dakota, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, Iowa, Illinois and North Dakota.

In September 2013, the Veterans Administration conducted an unannounced site visit of Patriot Company. The site inspector discovered that Salavitch was working 40 miles away at his full-time job as a federal employee with the Department of Defense in Leavenworth, Kansas.

Wilson did not stop violating the law even after the government’s site visit.  Instead, Wilson and Salavitch fought cancellation of Patriot Company’s status. In November 2013, Salavitch falsely certified to the Missouri Division of Purchasing and Materials Management that Patriot Company was a legitimate service-disabled veteran-owned small business when he knew it was not because he did not actively run the company. In December 2013, the Veterans Administration de-certified Patriot Company.

This case was investigated by the Department of Veterans Affairs – Office of Inspector General – Criminal Investigation Division, and the General Services Administration – Office of Inspector General.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/former-company-owner-sentenced-137-million-rent-vet-scheme

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, Army, certification, conviction, fraud, GSA, preference, rent-a-vet, SDVOSB, set-aside, VA, verification, veteran owned business, VOSB

VA suspends processing of veteran-owned business applications

May 16, 2018 By Andrew Smith

The U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs’ Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) has announced that effective May 21, 2018, it will suspend the processing of all applications for veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) verification.

CVE says the suspension of application processing will last approximately thirty (30) days.

The suspension of activity includes both new applications and re-verifications.

Applications submitted before May 21, will continue to be processed during the suspension period.

The reason for the 30-day suspension of activity is to allow CVE to roll-out new Vendor Information Pages (VIP) to support the VA’s Vets First verification program.

More details can be found in this document: VIP Enhancement and 30-Day Suspension Notice

 

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: CVE, SDVOSB, VA, verification, VOSB

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

January 17, 2018 By Andrew Smith

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

Veteran-owned small businesses: 5 things you should know

December 6, 2017 By Andrew Smith

You’ve served your country with pride.  Now, as a government contractor, it’s only fair that you get your piece of the pie.

Here are five things you should know about the government’s contracting programs for veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses:

  1. What is a veteran-owned small business?
  2. Who “controls” the business?
  3. What’s the benefit?
  4. Can a business challenge my status?
  5. How can your business apply?

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/five-things/sdvosbs-and-vosbs/

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: CVE, ownership and control, SDVOSB, small business, VA, verification, veteran, veteran owned business, VOSB

VA’s SDVOSB JV verification assistance brief is wrong

June 7, 2017 By Andrew Smith

The VA’s Verification Assistance Brief for SDVOSB and VOSB joint ventures flat-out misstates the law regarding the manner in which joint venture profits must be split.

SDVOSBs and VOSBs often rely on Verification Assistance Briefs to guide them through the CVE verification process, and CVE analysts sometimes use Verification Assistance Briefs, too.  Which begs the question: how many CVE-verified joint ventures are legally invalid?

The VAAR provides that a joint venture can be eligible for a VA SDVOSB or VOSB set-aside contract so long as the joint venture (among other things) adopts a joint venture agreement meeting the requirements of the SBA’s SDVOSB regulations.  So far, so good–joint ventures are complex enough; the last thing we need is a separate, VA-specific list of SDVOSB joint venture requirements.

Effective August 24, 2016, the SBA overhauled its requirements for SDVOSB joint ventures.  The SBA moved the regulations from 13 C.F.R. 125.15 to 13 C.F.R. 125.18, and made many substantive changes and additions.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/the-vas-sdvosb-jv-verification-assistance-brief-is-wrong/

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: CVE, joint venture, SBA, SDVOSB, VA, verification, Verification Assistance Brief, veteran owned business, VOSB

Kingdomware doesn’t require recertification for GSA Schedule SDVOSB set-aside orders

May 19, 2017 By Andrew Smith

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States does not require SDVOSBs to recertify their eligibility in connection with individual GSA Schedule task orders.

In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that Kingdomware doesn’t affect the SBA’s SDVOSB eligibility regulation for multiple-award contracts, which specifies that if a company qualifies as an SDVOSB at the time of the initial offer for a multiple-award contract, it ordinarily qualifies as an SDVOSB for all orders issued under the contract.

OHA’s decision in Redhorse Corporation, SBA No. VET-263 (2017) involved a GSA RFQ seeking transition ordering assistance in support of the Network Services Program.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a task order under the GSA Professional Services Schedule.  The order was set aside for SDVOSBs under NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Consulting Services).  The GSA contracting officer did not request that offerors recertify their SDVOSB eligibility in connection with the order.

After evaluating quotations, the GSA announced that Redhorse Corporation was the apparent awardee.  An unsuccessful competitor subsequently filed a protest challenging Redhorse’s SDVOSB status.  The SBA Director of Government Contracting sustained the protest and found Redhorse to be ineligible for the task order.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/sbaohadecisions/kingdomware-doesnt-require-recertification-for-gsa-schedule-sdvosb-set-aside-orders

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: certification, GSA Schedule, Kingdomware, OHA, recertification, reverification, rule of two, SBA, SDVOSB, small business, task order, verification

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • OMB releases guidance related to small business goals
  • Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?
  • OMB issues guidance on impact of injunction on government contractor vaccine mandate
  • CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors
  • OFCCP launches contractor portal initiating AAP verification program

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

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

Nondisplacement of qualified workers is back, but with changes

Read More

Contracting Tips

Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?

CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors

OFCCP launches contractor portal initiating AAP verification program

GAO rules that DoD may not require small business Joint Venture itself hold facility security clearance

Terminations for convenience clauses vs. mutual termination clauses

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 © 2022 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute