Hubzone Contracts Take Set-Aside Priority Over 8(a) Program

Posted on March 9, 2010 by Lynn Patton Thompson

In Mission Critical Solutions v. United States, COFC No. 09-864 C (March 2, 2010), the Court of Federal Claims has determined that the HUBZone program takes priority over the 8(a) program.

Mission Critical Solutions ("MCS") was certified as both an 8(a) and HUBZone small business. In 2008, the Department of the Army awarded MCS a one-year sole-source 8(a) contract for just under $3.5 million to provide information technology ("IT") services. For the follow-on requirement, which was valued (including options) at approximately $10.5 million (in excess of the applicable $3.5 million ceiling on sole-source contracts), the Army determined it could not make award to MCS. However, the Army decided it could make a sole-source 8(a) award to Copper River Information Technology, LLC ("Copper River"), an Alaska Native Corporation, if the SBA would approve Copper River as the IT provider for the requirement. SBA accepted the requirement on behalf of Copper River under its 8(a) program and the Army made the award.

MCS protested the sole-source 8(a) award to Copper River to the GAO. MCS argued that the Army was required to compete the requirement as a HUBZone business set-aside. The GAO sustained MCS’s protest. However, the Office of Management and Budget ordered that executive agencies disregard the GAO’s ruling until the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Justice Department ("OLC") reviewed the matter. After the OLC declared its disagreement with GAO, the Army took the position that it had no authority to take any action inconsistent with the OLC’s position. Thus, MCS’s request for protest costs and a second protest against the award were denied by GAO as "academic", because the Army had stated its position that GAO recommendations could not be followed in the matter. MCS took its protest to the Court of Federal Claims.

Chief Judge Emily Hewitt sided with MCS and declared the Army’s award to Copper River under the 8(a) program not in accordance with law. The Army’s argument that there is parity between the 8(a) and HUBZone requirements was rejected. Judge Hewitt found that the HUBZone statute mandates set-asides for competition among HUBZone concerns whenever there is a reasonable expectation that at least 2 qualified HUBZone firms will submit offers and award can be made at a reasonable price. The plain language of the HUBZone statute at 15 USC § 657a(b)(2) requires such set-asides "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law". Moreover, whereas contracting officers "may" decide to award contracts under the 8(a) program when the HUBZone statutory set-aside criteria are not met, there is no such discretion for contracting officers when the HUBZone statutory are met. Judge Hewitt enjoined the Army from awarding the IT support services contract without first determining whether the "rule of two" is met "such that the contract opportunity at issue in this case must be awarded on the basis of competition among qualified HUBZone small business concerns."

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Contracts for Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns

Posted on August 27, 2009 by Lynn Patton Thompson

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned ("SDVO") contracts are one of several types of "set-aside" contracts which permit qualified entities to compete for federal government contracts on other than "full and open" competition terms. SDVO contracts are taking their place among small business set-asides, 8(a) set-asides, and HUBZone set-asides. With submission of its initial offer for a SDVO Small Business Concerns ("SBC") contract set-aside, a concern must certify that:

       

    • it is a SDVO SBC

      •  

    • it is "small" as defined by the NAICS code assigned to the procurement

      •  

    • it will comply with the percentage of work requirements set forth in 13 CFR 125.6

      •  

    • if a joint venture, that both members of the joint venture are small; and

      •  

    • if applicable, it is an eligible nonmanufacturer.

Even if a SDVO meets all of the foregoing on a particular procurement, it must still consider the Small Business Administration’s ("SBA") rules on affiliation, all of which can apply to render a "technically" compliant SDVO as "other than small" and therefore ineligible for the award of SDVO contracts. Whether a SDVO wants to ensure it has not run afoul of the rules prohibiting affiliation between SBCs or a SDVO competitor wants to successfully challenge the SDVO status of a competitor, the SDVO needs to be familiar with the rules by which the SBA determines entities to be affiliated.

For example, a SDVO that is deemed unduly reliant upon a subcontractor for performance of the vital or primary functions of a contract may be deemed to be affiliated with the subcontractor. If the average annual receipts of the SDVO and this "ostensible" subcontractor exceed the applicable size limitation, the SDVO will be deemed ineligible for the SDVO contract. More basic still could be a finding of affiliation based on the "newly organized concern" or shared ownership rules.

Affiliation with a subcontractor may also be found even though a subcontractor is not performing the vital or primary functions of a contract. While bonding assistance alone by a subcontractor generally does not create affiliation between a SBC and a subcontractor, when coupled with other performance assistance, it could result in a finding of affiliation. Other indicia of "assistance" include, but are not limited to, bid preparation by the subcontractor rather than the prime SDVO; the loan of equipment to the SDVO by a subcontractor; office sharing by the SDVO and a subcontractor; and payroll, bookkeeping, and other "back office" assistance by the subcontractor. The proximity of the SDVO’s offices may also come into play when affiliation with a subcontractor is examined. For instance, where a SDVO SBC has been located 1100 miles away from the site of contract performance has been determined by the SBA to render the SDVO unduly reliant upon a subcontractor because the SDVO is too remote to provide meaningful, day-to-day management of the project. However, an SDVO’s location 100 miles away from the site of contract performance has been deemed not too remote.

Whether affiliation exists to render your SDVO or a competitor’s SDVO ineligible for a particular procurement or ineligible generally for the SDVO program is very fact-specific. To minimize the risk of being declared "other than small" SDVOs should carefully review all rules by which the SBA examines allegations of affiliation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,