PilieroMazza successfully defended an award of a contract to our client by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for special needs ground transportation services. A competitor filed a protest of this award with the GAO, alleging that our client’s proposal did not satisfy certain solicitation requirements and that our client did not have the ability to perform the contract or the vehicles available to perform the contract. We successfully argued that our client’s proposal satisfied the requirements of the solicitation, and that the VA reasonably determined the same. We also demonstrated that the allegations regarding the availability of vehicles or our client’s ability to perform the contract were without merit. GAO agreed and denied the protest, allowing our client to move forward with this important contract.
PilieroMazza successfully defended our client’s service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB) status in a SDVOSB and size status protest before the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The U.S. Army awarded our client a construction contract under a SDVOSB set-aside procurement. A competitor protested our client’s size and SDVOSB status on the assumption that our client was unduly reliant on its proposed subcontract, in violation of the ostensible subcontractor rule. First, we successfully defended our client’s small business status. The protester then tried to use ostensible subcontractor arguments to assert that the service-disabled veteran did not control the company as required for SDVOSB eligibility. We successfully argued that the ostensible subcontractor rule does not apply in assessing veteran control of an SDVOSB, which contributed to SBA’s ruling that our client satisfied the veteran-control requirements for SDVOSB eligibility. SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals then confirmed SBA’s ruling on appeal.
PilieroMazza successfully appealed SBA’s denial of Gemini 3 Group, Inc.’s (“G3G”) application for the 8(a) program. G3G’s owner had argued, in submitting her 8(a) application, that she was socially disadvantaged due to the gender bias she had faced throughout her career. The SBA disagreed that she was socially disadvantaged, because she did not belong to any of the groups presumed to be socially disadvantaged under SBA’s 8(a) regulations, and denied her 8(a) application, in part, on that basis. PilieroMazza assisted G3G with its request for reconsideration of its 8(a) application, and was able to successfully argue that SBA ignored, overlooked, and rejected relevant evidence in the record, failed to take reasonable inferences showing gender discrimination, and offered only vague or conclusory remarks in dismissing several incidents of discrimination that G3G’s owner reported. We were also able to demonstrate that G3G had the potential for success, given the owner’s qualifications, the Company’s financial health and successful record of performance on federal contracts. G3G was admitted to the 8(a) Program as a result.
PilieroMazza successfully delivered preliminary injunctive relief for its client in a bid protest action brought before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Our client was the successful offeror on a U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) procurement acquiring information technology services. After the incumbent contractor filed a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) protest challenging our client’s award, the BIA canceled the solicitation, terminated our client’s contract, and issued a sole source award to the incumbent protester, all as part of a planned “corrective action,” which included the plan to reprocure the services with an increased scope of work at a future date. Challenging the BIA’s actions on the basis of the improper nature of the sole source award and the scope of the corrective action taken in response to the incumbent’s GAO protest, the COFC agreed with PilieroMazza’s arguments that the BIA violated the law: “In the court’s view, plaintiff has provided strong indication that both the award decision, and the associated corrective action here, were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise contrary to law.” The COFC enjoined the BIA from allowing the incumbent to continue performance on the sole source contract award, which forced the BIA to reprocure the services. On the reprocurement, our client was once again able to successfully secure the contract award.