Legal Meets Practical: Accessible Solutions

VetBiz, the Busted Tire: Are Recent Developments Just a Patch?

by Sarah Schauerte

Whether in reaction to a bill introduced in the House that threatened to take it away, or because of some other motivation, the VA has lately initiated a slew of changes to its VetBiz Verification Program. But is this the equivalent of changing a leaky tire, or sticking on a cheap patch?

As we know, the Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE), which is part of the VA, is responsible for verifying Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses or Veteran-Owned Small Businesses as eligible for the VA’s Veterans First Contracting  Program. (“CVE” used to stand for “Center for Veterans Enterprise,” but this was changed via an interim final rule published in the Federal Register on September 30). For quite a while, CVE has been heatedly criticized for issues arising with the VetBiz Program. Common criticisms include delays and errors in application processing, poor communication, and a lack of clarity regarding what is required for successful verification.

In August, a bill was introduced in Congress to take the Veterans First Contracting Program from the VA and put it in the hands of the Small Business Administration. (Read about this bill here). Around the same time that this occurred, changes began occurring with VetBiz. At that time, the VA had already implemented its VetBiz Pre-Determination process, which allowed veteran business owners to quickly fix drafting errors in their corporate documents and resubmit their applications (rather than receive a denial). Also, the VetBiz website had been revamped to include additional resources.

After the bill was introduced, the VetBiz website was mum on the subject. Would the VA fight to keep authority over VetBiz, or improve the process under its auspices?

The CVE did not address this on its website. It did, however, post new statistics on wait times and approval rates. Anyone glimpsing them gasped in surprise. 96% approval? How is this possible? This seems too good to be true!

This is possible because of the new Pre-Decision process, which does, in fact, result in a statistic too good to be true.

In the VetBiz Pre-Decision process, an applicant that would otherwise be denied gets to withdraw its application.  Since there is no incentive to accepting a denial, the decision is a no-brainer.  And guess what happens when an application is withdrawn? The denial is not included in the CVE’s statistics.

The VetBiz statistics also state that initial applications and requests for reconsideration are taking a much shorter time to process. When I say “much shorter,” I mean that waiting times are cut in half, which is a drastic change.

Here’s the wrinkle. Now with the new processes – Pre-determination and Pre-decision – veterans are withdrawing their applications instead of being denied. When the CVE says it takes a certain number of days to receive a decision, how many times has the veteran withdrawn, and then resubmitted? What number would we have if the CVE counted the time a veteran first submitted his application, to when it was finally approved?

Then there’s the website. Many resources have been added, which is great. However, it is difficult to navigate to find these resources, which is not so great. I know what I’m searching for when I research on the VetBiz website, and I have trouble finding it. A veteran business owner who is trying to familiarize himself with the process would have even greater trouble.

I’m not trying to get down on the CVE here. I am genuinely glad for the new developments, and the effort expended on its behalf. There are improvements, and that should be recognized. However, as it relates to the claims that verification comes much quicker, and much easier – context to these statistics should be provided. If a veteran-owned business is verified in 20 days, but it took two withdrawals for that to happen, that 20 day wait period shouldn’t be factored into the statistics to give the impression that verification is lightning-fast.

The CVE’s recent efforts aren’t a complete change of a busted tire, which is what the CVE frames them to be. At the same time, they’re not just a patch, either, and the CVE deserves credit for its willingness to get its hands dirty.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Please remember to click the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!

 

Comments are closed.

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.