|
Federal Market Intelligence for Small Business |
|
|
|
|
AbilityOne vs. vets goes to SCOTUSMore than a dozen AbilityOne nonprofits employing blind and severely disabled people are supporting a petition asking that the U.S. Supreme Court reinstate AbilityOne as a mandatory source at the Veterans Affairs Dept. If the petitioners are successful it would overturn the VA’s recent class deviation that ordered contracting officers to apply the Rule of Two to all procurements--even for AbilityOne items--to give veteran-owned small businesses top priority in VA contracts.. The case originally was brought by PDS Consultants Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, which protested the VA’s policies in awarding contracts to AbilityOne firms, including Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind. PDS cited the Supreme Court’s Kingdomware ruling of 2016, in which the court ordered the VA to award contracts to veteran-owned small firms based on the Rule of Two. PDS won its case in the Court of Federal Claims, resulting in the VA’s class deviation changing its policies. Winston-Salem Industries lost its longstanding VA contract, causing layoffs for 47 workers, with another 90 at risk. An appeals court backed VA. On Sept. 9, Winston-Salem Industries requested that the Supreme Court review the case. More than a dozen AbilityOne nonprofits support the petition. The Supreme Court is expected to respond within six weeks. The petitioners assert that the courts have misinterpreted the Kingdomware decision. They say Congress in its “Veterans First” law of 2006 did not intend to override AbilityOne. Instead, Congress intended that the VA would apply the Competitive Contracting Act of 1984, which states that when a procurement is to be made from a “specified source,” competitive procedures are not to be used. In the VA’s case, given that the Rule of Two for veterans is a competitive procedure, the VA should be applying the Rule of Two for veterans after awarding all mandatory-source required contracts to AbilityOne nonprofits, the petitioners say. The petitioners also are questioning the Court of Federal Claims’ initial jurisdiction over the case. More information:Petition for Writ of Certiorari: https://bit.ly/2B92F3y SCOTUSblog Coverage: https://bit.ly/2VB0Tl2
|
Washington Insider:
|
Copyright © 2019 Business Research Services Inc. All rights reserved.