veteran owned businesses | The Contracting Education Academy

March 15, 2021 By cs

2021 NDAA includes numerous provisions impacting government contracts

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-283) was enacted into law on January 1, 2021, when the Senate voted to override President Trump’s veto of the bill.

The Senate’s move, the final step in the legislative process, followed the House’s earlier vote to override President Trump’s veto in December 2020.

The FY21 NDAA sets funding levels and outlines policy priorities for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). It also addresses many areas of importance to government contractors, including acquisition policy and management, supply chain and industrial base matters, and small business issues. The final version of the NDAA produced by negotiators on the Conference Committee included provisions from earlier House and Senate versions, which we summarized in an earlier article.

This article includes our annual summary, by topic, of the most relevant provisions of the FY21 NDAA for government contractors. As detailed below, some of the provisions from the earlier House and Senate versions of the NDAA that we highlighted in our previous article were not accepted into the final version. As we’ve previously summarized, the NDAA also includes numerous provisions addressing cybersecurity and artificial intelligence policies with ramifications far beyond DoD, including implementing recommendations from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s 2020 Report.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/national-defense-authorization-act-for-5444697/

March 4, 2020 By cs

IG says Pentagon awarded $876 million in contracts meant for disabled vets to ineligible companies

Small businesses owned or run by disabled veterans may have been cheated out of hundreds of millions of dollars in Defense Department contracts by unscrupulous firms who were ineligible for the awards.

This information is contained in an Inspector General’s report released to the public on Feb. 20, 2020.

The IG’s audit found that the DoD “awarded $876.8 million in contracts to ineligible contractors and did not implement procedures to ensure compliance with the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) subcontracting requirements after the contracts were awarded.”

At least 16 of the 29 contractors reviewed in the report who received business from the DoD on the basis that they met the disabled veteran requirements were found to be ineligible, the IG’s office said.

Unless the DoD conducts better oversight, “service-disabled veterans may be in jeopardy of not receiving contract awards intended for them, and the DoD will be at risk of misreporting the amounts for SDVOSB participation,” the 29-page report states.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/20/pentagon-awarded-876m-contracts-meant-disabled-vets-ineligible-companies-ig.html

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.

December 3, 2012 By AMK

Court rules VA can ignore set-asides for veteran-owned businesses on GSA Schedule buys

The Department of Veterans Affairs takes the position that it is not obligated to consider veteran-owned businesses on goods and services it buys through GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule, and now the VA has a court decision that backs its stance.

On November 27, 2012, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that the VA has discretion to procure goods and services from GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule without first considering a set-aside acquisition for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) or veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs).

The ruling is a departure from several recent U.S. Government Accountability Office decisions. The GAO has consistently ruled that the VA must comply with the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 before conducting a GSA Schedule buy. The 2006 Act created the “Veterans First” contracting program that gives priority to SDVOSBs and VOSBs in VA acquisitions. The VA has maintained that the GAO’s interpretation of the 2006 Act was wrong and instructed its contracting officers to not apply the “Veterans First” principles to Schedule contracting.

The Kingdomware case represents the first time a court has ruled on the question of whether the GSA Schedule program is influenced by the terms of the “Veterans First” program.

In siding with the VA’s position, the Kingdomware decision found that the 2006 Act “is at best ambiguous as to whether it mandates a preference for SDVOSBs and VOSBs for all VA procurements.” The Federal Claims Court ruled:

The [VA] Secretary’s discretion to set contracting goals for SDVOSBs and VOSBs under the [“Veterans First” Act] contradicts plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute as creating a mandatory SDVOSB and VOSB set-aside procedure for each and every procurement . . . the goal-setting nature of the statute clouds the clarity plaintiff would attribute to the phrase “shall award” . . . and renders the [“Veterans First”] ambiguous as to its application to other procurement vehicles, such as the FSS [GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule].

The bottom line of the Kingdomware decision is that the VA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it used GSA Schedule contracts without first determining the appropriateness of a set-aside for SDVOSBs or VOSBs.

The full decision can be downloaded here: Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States.

August 18, 2011 By AMK

General Dynamics, others join protest of VA’s $12B T4 contract

Three additional protests have been filed with congressional auditors against the Veterans Affairs Department’s $12 billion Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology procurement program.

That brings the total to 15 protests filed with the Government Accountability Office against the T4 contract, of which 11 protests have been denied, dismissed or withdrawn.

The three new protests were filed Aug. 8 by IBM Corp., General Dynamics Information Technology Inc., and Standard Communications Inc.

IBM previously had filed a protest with GAO on Aug. 2.

The Aug. 2 IBM protest and the three new protests are currently listed as “open” by GAO, within decisions due by November. The GAO attorney in charge of the four cases is Paul Jordan.

A fourth company, D&S Consultants, has filed protests because the VA excludedit from the competitive range, but GAO denied the protest. GAO said that D&S could not show that the labor rates the government estimated for the contract were unreasonable. VA said that D&S labor rates were too low to give the agency any confidence that the work could be performed.

D&S has now filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims., according to Federal News Radio.

The T4 program is considered one of the largest IT contract vehicles in government, and selected companies will work on integrating VA systems and modernizing the department’s IT infrastructure.

The VA was expected to award 15 contractors the opportunity to bid for task orders valued at up to $12 billion over five years under the program.

As of July 5, 14 of the contracts had been awarded, and the 15th was being held until resolution of a protest.

Seven of the T4 awards were to be made to veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.

Under the law, federal agencies must suspend activity on a particular contract if a protest is filed against that contract within 10 days of an award, but there are exceptions that allow work to continue.

While the VA initially suspended T4 contracting activity after IBM’s Aug. 2 protest, the VA subsequently decided it had an “urgent and compelling” need to continue with the contract instead of waiting for GAO to resolve the protests, VA spokeswoman Jo Schuda wrote in an e-mail, according to an Aug. 11 article by Federal News Radio.

Schuda also said in the article that VA has been awarding noncompetitive contracts to the T4 winners, which the agency is allowed to do.

Schuda did not respond to a request for comment.

— About the Author: Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Washington Technology. Published Aug. 12, 2011 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2011/08/12/more-protests-va-t4-contract.aspx?s=wtdaily_150811.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-283) was enacted into law on January 1, 2021, when the Senate voted to override President Trump’s veto of the bill.

Small businesses owned or run by disabled veterans may have been cheated out of hundreds of millions of dollars in Defense Department contracts by unscrupulous firms who were ineligible for the awards.

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

Search this Website