Legal Meets Practical: Accessible Solutions

No Conductor on This Train: Who Will Run the CVE?

By the time all protests are resolved, there might not be anyone left to take the reins of the VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation (“CVE”).

In late November this year, the VA rescinded its September $39.9 million contract award to Monterey Consultants Inc. (“Monterey”) of Dayton, Ohio. That award, the bulk of which was for processing VetBiz applications, was protested by a disappointed offeror, Loch Harbour Group, Inc. (“Loch Harbour”).

Loch Harbour alleged conflict of interest related to other work Monterey performs for the VA under different contracts, questions about Monterey’s status as a veteran-owned small business, and concerns about how the proposals were evaluated. Its protest was pursued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“CoFC”).

In reaction to the protest, the VA confirmed that it would re-evaluate Loch Harbour’s proposal to determine whether the company qualified for the award. Monterey would no longer be eligible for re-award of the contract, according to the filing. Unhappy with this development, Monterey filed its own suit in the CoFC on December 3. This lawsuit protested the VA’s decision to no longer consider Monterey eligible for the contract, and Monterey asked that the court order a permanent injunction on the VA’s decision to cancel the contract and — for now — stop the VA from taking corrective action. The court denied the latter, meaning that the contract can transition to Loch Harbour on December 26, but it is still considering the merits of Monterey’s protest of the award decision.

Not long after that – less than a week, in fact – the VA* itself filed a size protest with the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), challenging Loch Harbour’s status as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (“SDVOSB”) and therefore eligible for the set-aside opportunity. This is despite the fact that Loch Harbour was re-verified by the CVE less than ten months ago; and that the VA (as the contracting agency) determined it eligible for the award during the contract evaluation process. Counsel for Loch Harbor, Lee Dougherty of Vienna, Virginia, has been quoted as saying that this is: “a terrible tactical move,” and that “[t]he retaliation taken by the program and contracting officer is absolutely inappropriate and a gross violation.”

A terrible tactical move or not, technically it’s allowed. Under the SBA’s rules on size protests, a contracting officer may initiate a size protest. 13 CFR 121.1001. And unlike size protests lodged by disappointed offerors, which must be filed within five days of receiving a Notice of Unsuccessful Offer, a contracting officer can do it at any time. 121 CFR 121.1004.

So here we are. Monterey is knocked out of line for the award, and Loch Harbour’s eligibility is being questioned by the VA itself. While great that the VA takes the initiative to make sure that the awardee of a large contract – which fulfills such an important mission – is truly eligible, the fact of the matter is that the VA already had months and months to question Loch Harbour’s status. Why now?

One thing’s for certain. The VA’s good at getting flak.

*VA, not CVE. The CVE’s been in the hot seat for a few items lately, but it’s important to notice that the action here all seems to stem from the VA officials responsible for awarding the contract, and not the CVE.

**Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for Sarah Schauerte’s legal blog on veterans’ issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click the link sent to your email to activate your subscription! Also, the LMP quarterly newsletter is officially out. Access it here.

 

 

 

One Response to “No Conductor on This Train: Who Will Run the CVE?”

  1. I have been advocating for the elimination of this program from VA for some time. The certification process at CVE is broken, and continues to shut out legitimate companies who are victimized by the lack of standardized processes for verification, especially when it comes to ownership and control issues. Exacerbating the process are the delays and bureaucracy which costs firms dearly as they wait and wait for verification, and then have to miss out on opportunity after opportunity.

    It is about core services and mission at VA. Save the $40 million being dumped into certifications and invest the money into the backlog of claims that cripple veterans waiting for services that they have earned and deserve.

Mission Statement

My mission is to provide accessible, high-quality legal services to small business owners and to veterans. I will strive to clearly communicate, understand objectives, and formulate and execute effective legal solutions.

Disclaimer

No Attorney-Client Relationship

This website is maintained exclusively for informational purposes. It is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the lawyer or her clients. Viewing this site, using information from it, or communicating with Sarah Schauerte through this site by email does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Non-Reliance

Online readers should not act nor decline to act, based on content from this site, without first consulting an attorney or other appropriate professional. Because the law changes frequently, this website's content may not indicate the current state of the law. Nothing on this site is meant to predict or guarantee future results. I am not liable for the use or interpretation of information contained on this website, and expressly disclaim all liability for any actions you take or fail to take, based on this website's content.

Links

I do not necessarily endorse and am not responsible for content accessed through this website's links to other Internet resources. Correctness and adequacy of information on those sites is not guaranteed, and unless otherwise stated, I am not associated with such linked sites.

Contacting Me

You may email me through the email address provided by this site, but information you send through email or this website is not secure and may not be confidential. Communications will not be treated as privileged unless I already represent you. Do not send confidential information until you have established a formal attorney-client relationship with me. Even if I represent you, please understand that email security is still uncertain and that you accept all risks of such uncertainty and potential lack of confidentiality when you send us unencrypted, sensitive, or confidential email. Email from me never constitutes an electronic signature, unless it expressly says so.