Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

“Close Enough” Isn’t Good Enough: Protester’s “Homebrew” Certification Sinks Proposal • Lost in Translation: GAO Upholds Rejection of Lease Written in Japanese • Bid Protests in Alaska • Federal Circuit Holds Challengers to CICA Stay Overrides Need Not Satisfy Four-Factor Injunctive Relief Test • The Clock Is Still Ticking — Claims Timeliness Across the Boards and at the COFC

Published on November 15, 2022 • Law

Perhaps Submitting a Signature Card from a Bank that No Longer Exists Was Not the Best Way to Prove SDVOSB Eligibility

Doucefleurm| Shutterstock

The VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) requested documents from an SDVOSB as part of a verification examination. CVE determined that the documents the company submitted—including a 19-year old bank card from a bank that ceased to exist after 2008—were not sufficient. CVE cancelled the company’s SDVOSB status. The company appealed the cancellation. OHA denied the appeal, finding CVE was within its rights to cancel an SDVOSB verification when the firm doesn’t adequately respond to a document request.

CVE Appeal of Komplete Systems Integrators, Inc., SBA No. CVE-244-A

Background

The VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation verified Komplete Systems Integrators as an SDVOSB in 2012. In 2022, as part of a verification examination, CVE asked Komplete to produce various documents, including payroll information, recent rental payments, and signature card identifying all authorized users on the business bank account.

In response to the request, Komplete submitted a document purporting to show the wages of individuals associated with the company. Komplete also submitted a 2003 signature card from Wachovia bank, even though Wachovia had not existed as a bank since 2008.

CVE determined these submissions were not sufficient and thus cancelled Komplete’s status as an SDVOSB. Komplete appealed to the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Analysis

Under CVE regulations, if a concern fails to make required submissions in response to a CVE request, CVE can cancel that firm’s verified status. Here, CVE had asked Komplete for documents. Komplete submitted documents that were deficient or non-responsive. OHA could not conclude that CVE had improperly cancelled Komplete’s status.

Komplate asked that OHA consider various new exhibits pertaining to eligibility that the company had submitted as part of its appeal. OHA, however, reasoned that it will only consider evidence outside the record if good cause is shown. Komplete had not demonstrated why good caused existed.

Komplete is represented by its CEO, Kevin L. Doby.

--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.