veteran owned business | The Contracting Education Academy

September 23, 2016 By AMK

Kingdomware decision gives new meaning to the words ‘government contract’

The Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision in Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, No. 14-916 (June 16, 2016), may significantly impact the meaning of the term “government contract” for years to come.

Supreme Court seal The case centered on a project for the Department of Veteran Affairs. When VA continually fell behind in achieving its three percent goal for contracting with service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, Congress enacted the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 8127 & 8128. The Act includes a mandatory set-aside provision that requires competition to be restricted to veteran-owned small businesses if the government contracting officer reasonably expects that at least two such businesses will submit offers and that the “award can be made at a fair and reasonable price that offers best value to the United States.” This is an iteration of the well-known “Rule of Two.”

When it published regulations implementing this statutory requirement, VA took the position that the set-aside requirements in § 8127 “do not apply to [Federal Supply Schedule] task or delivery orders.” 74 Fed. Reg. 64619, 64624 (2009). The Kingdomware case posed a direct challenge to this interpretation.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.contractorsperspective.com/small-business/kingdomware-redefines-government-contract/#page=1

August 19, 2016 By AMK

VA doesn’t waste time in implementing Supreme Court decision

The Veterans Affairs Department acted unusually quickly to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “rule of two” decision in the Kingdomware case.

So much so that it both surprised observers and had them wondering if VA was acting too hastily.

VA issued new acquisition regulations July 25, just more than a month after the decision, which found VA’s interpretation of a law requiring the agency to set-aside all procurements if at least two veteran-owned small businesses are qualified was flawed. The nation’s highest court reversed the lower court’s decision on June 16 by an 8-0 vote, finding VA must use the “rule of two” for supply schedule contracts even if it has met its statutory contracting goals.

Keep reading this article at: http://federalnewsradio.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2016/08/va-doesnt-waste-time-implementing-supreme-court-decision/

See the VA’s new rules here.

See the VA’s “decision tree” for following the Rule of Two here.

June 16, 2016 By AMK

Supreme Court gives VA new marching orders

In a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down today, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was directed to change its contracting practices.

The Court’s June 16, 2016 ruling in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-916 means that the VA can no longer chose to ignore a 2006 law that requires the VA to restrict contract competitions to veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) as long as there are at least two qualified VOSBs available to perform the work. This provision of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (“the Act”) is known as the “Rule of Two.”

The VA long argued that it had the discretion to not follow the “Rule of Two” when it placed orders against GSA Schedule contracts. But the Court found the following provision of the Act to be unambiguous:

… a contracting officer of the Department shall award contracts on the basis of competition restricted to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that two or more small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price that offers best value to the United States.

It is not yet known how quickly the VA will change is practices with respect to GSA Schedule orders. But the Court has made it clear that the Rule of Two is mandatory, not discretionary — and there’s no exception for GSA Schedule orders.

Read the Supreme Court decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-916_6j37.pdf

June 29, 2015 By AMK

VA says questionable spending was ‘improper accounting,’ not fraud

A senior Veterans Affairs Department official denied allegations last Tuesday that the agency committed fraud by making billions of dollars in purchases outside the federal rules or by making it appear to Congress like it was meeting its veteran-owned small business contracting mission.

Thomas J. Leney, executive director of the VA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, conceded that the agency spent more than $3 billion in purchases outside the normal contracting process, but insisted that in most cases the buys were made to meet the needs of veteran patients.

He was responding to questioning from Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colorado, who described the agency’s purchases, failure to follow acquisition law and fudging the numbers on small business contracts as fraud.

“I am not prepared to say that this is an issue of fraud,” Leney replied. “This is an issue of improper accounting.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/06/24/va-says-questionable-spending-was-improper-accounting-not-fraud.html

January 22, 2014 By AMK

Sham charged in $1.2 million veteran business fraud

A Bergen County, N.J., woman was arrested on January 8, 2014 on charges that she fraudulently represented her company as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business in order to obtain more than $1.2 million worth of government contracts set aside for disabled veterans, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

Miriam Friedman, 54, of Teaneck, N.J., surrendered to special agents from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of the Inspector General, as a result of a federal criminal complaint charging her with wire fraud. She is scheduled to make her initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III in Newark federal court.

According to the unsealed complaint:

Friedman is the owner of Office Dimensions Inc., a company in Teaneck that sells furniture and design services to industrial and government customers. Friedman and her husband control Office Dimensions and all its revenues, as well as run the company’s daily operations. Neither served in the U.S. military, but Friedman’s father-in-law is a retired U.S. military veteran.

On Nov. 23, 2009, Friedman certified in a central registry for government contractors that Office Dimensions was a service-disabled veteran-owned small business. In her certification, she allegedly falsely claimed that her father-in-law was the owner and operator, even though he had very little involvement with Office Dimensions and was not service-disabled. Friedman then bid for VA contracts set aside for service-disabled veterans who own their businesses.

From January 2010 through November 2011, the VA paid Office Dimensions more than $1.2 million on fraudulently obtained contracts to which Friedman was not entitled.

The wire fraud count with which Friedman was charged is punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross loss or gain cause by the offense.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey G. Hughes; the U.S. General Services Administration, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge James E. Adams; and IRS – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Shantelle P. Kitchen, for the investigation leading to today’s arrest.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott B. McBride of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Health Care and Government Fraud Unit in Newark.

The charges and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations and the defendant is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

See District of New Jersey U.S. Attorney Office’s press release at: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/Friedman,%20Miriam%20Arrest%20News%20Release.html

The Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision in Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, No. 14-916 (June 16, 2016), may significantly impact the meaning of the term “government contract” for years to come.

The Veterans Affairs Department acted unusually quickly to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “rule of two” decision in the Kingdomware case.

In a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down today, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was directed to change its contracting practices.

A senior Veterans Affairs Department official denied allegations last Tuesday that the agency committed fraud by making billions of dollars in purchases outside the federal rules or by making it appear to Congress like it was meeting its veteran-owned small business contracting mission.

Search this Website