Scott Denniston, director of programs for the National Veteran-Owned Business Association (NaVOBA), on April 23 addressed the effects of sole sourcing and contract bundling on veteran-owned businesses during testimony before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
At the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee Hearing on contracting policy at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Denniston conveyed his concerns regarding VA contracting, how the process can be improved and whether there are enough veteran-owned businesses (VOBs) with the capacity to meet and fulfill contracts.
There were several areas of concern that NaVOBA believes are impacting VA’s ability to work with veteran- and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
"The first deals with VA’s use of other agencies to contract work for VA," Denniston said concerning the fact that NaVOBA learned that many of the VA opportunities contracted by the Army Corps of Engineers were being awarded to 8a and other socio-economic groups rather than VOBs.
"VA also, we understand, has entered into an agreement with the Navy for IT contract support. These agreements, in our opinion, take legitimate contract opportunities away from the veteran business community as other agencies do not follow VA priorities for award."
The next issue Denniston addressed is the VA’s implementation of Public Law 109-461 which was enacted Dec. 22, 2006, with a 180-day implementation period. To date the final rules have not been published, nearly two-and-a-half years later.
"The only guidance provided to the VA contracting officers that we know of was an information letter published June 19, 2007," Denniston said. "Information letters do not, in our opinion, have the same impact as regulations."
Another issue Denniston addressed regards the interpretation of PL 109-461. Section 503/8128(a) states: "Contracting Priority: In procuring goods and services pursuant to a contracting preference under this title or any other provision of law, the Secretary shall give priority to a small business concern owned and controlled by veterans, if such business concern also meets the requirements of that contracting preference."
"We take this to mean VA is to provide a priority to veteran-owned small businesses in the purchase of everything VA buys," Denniston said. "The draft rules published by VA to date only address ‘open market’ procurements. The draft rule eliminates the millions of dollars VA spends using the Federal Supply Schedules, Ability One, prime vendor and other contract mechanisms from consideration for veteran-owned small businesses. We do not believe this is the intent of Congress."
In the May 2009 issue of Vetrepreneur, NaVOBA firmly supported the VA’s verification of veteran- and service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses as envisioned by PL 109-461.
"We believe the VA’s Center for Veterans Enterprise has developed a comprehensive plan to provide the verification of veteran status, as well as address the ownership and control issues identified in the law," Denniston said. "The CVE plan requires the hiring of some minimal additional staff, as well as the use of contractor support to assist in developing the verification review process, risk analysis, and procedures for on-site reviews when required. The initial requests for contractor support were submitted to VA’s Acquisition Office in May 2008, and to date no contractor support has been provided. The CVE verification plan will fail without contractor support."
The final issue NaVOBA addressed concerned the training of VA acquisition professionals on the requirements and responsibilities of supporting the VOB and SDVOB programs.
"NaVOBA wants to encourage VA to ensure all acquisition professionals are trained on the requirements of PL 109-461," Denniston said. "This is the only way to ensure consistent application of the law."
The Committee asked if there are enough veteran-owned small businesses with the capacity to meet and fulfill VA’s contracting needs. Denniston reiterated NaVOBA’s position that there are more than enough businesses.
"We believe this is evident given VA’s track record to date," Denniston said. "Our members tell us the biggest impediments to doing business with VA are access to decision-makers to present capabilities, access to timely information on upcoming contract opportunities, inconsistent implementation of the provisions of PL 109-461, VA’s administration of the Federal Supply Schedules regarding distributors, and VA’s use of contract vehicles such as prime vendor and standardization which limit opportunities."
Two other NaVOBA members testified before the committee. Anthony R. Jimenez, 2006 Vetrepreneur of the Year and president and CEO of MicroTech, LLC, and Lisa N. Wolford,　president and CEO of CSSS.NET, both testified on separate panels.
To watch the video and read the transcripts of the testimony visit http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/hearing.aspx?NewsID=385.