Company consolidating contracting russian austrian dating agency
Unlike the first Court case, the question before the Court in the new case was not whether the VA had properly removed VCG from the Vet Biz database, but rather whether OHA had erred by upholding the finding that VCG was ineligible, under the SBA’s SDVOSB rules, for the Corps contract.
The Court began by writing that “[t]his post-award bid protest features interactions between complex and divergent regulatory frameworks, giving rise to a harsh, even perverse, result.” The Court then walked through the statutory and regulatory framework, explaining in detail that the government operates two SDVOSB programs, each with its own eligibility rules.
The SBA determined that these provisions “deprived [Mr.
The Court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the VA to restore VCG to the Vet Biz database, but reserved a final decision until further briefing in the case. As I wrote in a September post, OHA held that the restrictions in VCG’s Shareholders Agreement prevented Mr.Montano’s ability to transfer his shares undermined the SBA’s requirement that an SDVOSB be at least 51% “unconditionally owned” by service-disabled veterans.The SBA issued a decision finding VCG to be ineligible for the Corps contract.Do D procurements fall under the SBA’s SDVOSB regulations, not the VA’s separate rules.