Here is another win for small-business contractors from the Court of Federal Claims.
In an effort to save its contract from a small-business set-aside for which it was ineligible, an incumbent contractor, Dynamic Educational Systems, Inc., (“Dynamic”) filed a pre-award bid protest challenging a solicitation for the operation of a Jobs Corps Center for the Department of Labor.
Dynamic argued, first, that the relevant organic law for the Job Corps centers, 29 U.S.C. sec. 2887 (a) (2) (A), required that “the Secretary shall select on a competitive basis an entity to operate a Jobs Corps center.” Dynamic said that a “competitive basis” requirement precluded small-business set-asides. This argument, however, had been rejected by the Court in 2012 in Res-Care, Inc. v. United States, on which our firm previously blogged. So, Dynamic nuanced its argument by citing language in the statute that the Secretary of Labor “shall enter into an agreement with a Federal, State, or local agency, an area vocational education school or residential vocational school, or a private organization, for the operation of each Job Corps center.” It argued that by listing all eligible contracting entities Congress intended for Job Corps center operators to be chosen on a competitive basis among all those eligible entities.
The Court rejected this argument, further establishing the rule that small-business set-asides are themselves competitive. It held that just because Congress listed entities eligible for a contract, it doesn’t follow that every procurement should be open to all those entities. The Court highlighted Congressional policy that small-business set-asides are themselves intended to promote competition: “It is the declared policy of the Congress that the Government should aid, counsel, assist, and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small-business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise, to insure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the Government . . . be placed with small-business enterprises . . .” (15 U.S.C. sec. 631 (a)).
Dynamic next argued two technicalities. The Court rejected both, but the points raised certainly seemed correct and the Court couldn’t directly rebuff either one. Rather, focusing on policy over literal interpretation, it resolved these technical issues in favor of the government.
First, Dynamic argued that the law required the agency to conduct a “Fair Proportion Determination” under 15 U.S.C. sec. 644 (a) to properly ensure that a fair proportion of small businesses within a particular industry get contracts. The government didn’t do this at the contract level. However, the Court held that that this determination could be made at a higher agency level. In order to reach this conclusion, the Court had to, in effect, rewrite the regulation concluding that the rule was miswritten as a result of “merely infelicitous drafting.” The Court was probably right on the policy but wrong on the reading of the regulation. This may be the subject of an appeal.
Second, Dynamic argued that the regulation that applied the FAR to this procurement was enacted without authority because it was enacted after the DOL’s statutory authority to do so lapsed. The government admitted the lapse, but characterized the rule as a “goal” rather than a pre-condition to rule-writing authority. The Court followed this logic and, also, identified a separate source of authority for the procurement.
Fill out the form and we’ll respond as soon as possible.
Posted on Google
AnonymousTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I was facing a charge of Reckless Driving for speeding on I66 at midnight. This is considered a Class 1 Misdemeanor in the state of Virginia. Having something like Reckless Driving on your record is on par with having a DUI. This charge also carries a chance for jail time (up to a year). I was incredibly scared because I had never faced such a charge. And looking into Virginia Law, my speed exceeded 90mph, which is quite serious. I retained Dave Albo to help me with this case. Since my record was clean, Dave had advised I do the following before my trial. * Take a DMV Driver's Improvement Course * Take a Behavior Modification Course * Do 100 hours of community service * Print my DMV Record one week before the trial On the day of my trial, Dave got my Reckless Driving charge REDUCED to a regular Speeding charge. This was the absolute best case scenario for me. No criminal record. No jail time. No suspension of license. I did receive 6 demerit points and had to pay a fine of $250 (plus court fees). But that's a slap on the wrist, compared to what I could have been facing. Thank you Dave Albo for helping me through this ordeal!Posted on Google
TomDave albo it's a fantastic lawyer. He has helped me twice now with great results both times with minor traffic tickets. I would recommend him to anybody including my family. He has great ethics and honesty which is what I look for in a lawyer .Posted on Google
kendall carpenterDave was my attorney recently for a car accident where I needed someone to represent me in court. After exchanging all necessary information he reassured me when the court date came that there wouldn’t be anything to worry about. On the day of court a couple problems arose and Dave was able to rectify them quickly, told me everything I need to say if needed and when it was all over he got my violation reduced significantly. I hope to never go to court again but if I do I will being calling Dave again.Posted on Google
Amanda StallardRetaining the services of Mr. Albo for traffic court was probably the best decision I made. He is very responsive to emails, knowledgeable, and punctual. He provided excellent advice that eased the panic of having to go to the court house and stand before a judge. I am very happy with the outcome of my visit to traffic court and highly recommend Dave Albo.Posted on Google
Mark WestMr Albo was very professional and I was pleased with the outcome.Posted on Google
MDavid was incredible to work with from clear communication and next steps. To showing up to traffic court early to walk over all steps, making case in court as experienced/intelligent/well spoken lawyer. Lastly, he even followed after case in writing to confirm the outcome outlining everything that happened in lamen terms (in my case the best outcome we could ask for). I’m so appreciative to David.Posted on Google
mitquinn88Absolutely top notch representation. Can't thank Dave enough for his knowledge and expertise.Posted on Google
G RThanks to Dave Albo for a fantastic job representing me and ensuring the best possible outcome for my case. I highly recommend him - you will be in good hands for sure. From start to finish he provided expert counsel and kept me well informed. He simply could not have done a better job.Posted on Google
Hope CarriganI am THRILLED with the outcome of my case, all thanks to Attorney Albo's superb expertise, excellent advice & sharp negotiating skills! I am extremely relieved and grateful; I highly recommend retaining his services. Well beyond worth it!!Posted on Google
Doug DamronDave did a great job representing me for my traffic court infraction! I wanted the best and his name came up as I searched for an attorney. Highly recommend him on all levels including a successful outcome to my case.
