• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Rule of Two “trumps” Ability One for VA Contract

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • June 19, 2017
  • Contracting PreferenceJavits-Wagner-O'Day ActRule of Two
  • 0 Comments

PDS Consultants, Inc, v. United States

Agency: The Department of Veteran Affairs

Disposition: Protest Sustained (Court of Federal Claims)

Keywords:  Contracting Preference; Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act; Rule of Two

Decided: May 30, 2017

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

Where an agency has statutorily declared a preference with specificity, this preference takes precedence over general provisions for preference.  

Summary of Facts

This case stems from two competing statutes, both of which govern procurement of items and services by the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”).  The Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act 41 U.S.C. § 8501-06 (JWOD) requires all government agencies to purchase products and services from non-profits who employ blind and disabled people, when the non-profits’ services or products are on a list referred to as the “AbilityOne” list.  The Veterans Benefits Act of 2006, (“VBA”) on the other hand, requires the VA to ascertain whether two or more veteran owned small business are capable of performing the work before procuring goods or services.  Where there are at least two such businesses, the VA is required to limit competition to veteran owned small businesses.  This requirement is referred to as the “Rule of Two.”

In this protest, PDS Consultants, Inc. (“PDS”) objects to the VA’s future handling of two current contracts for eyewear prescription services, VISN 2 and VISN 7, which were previously awarded from the AbilityOne list.  The VA took the position, because the services and products required for VISN 2 and VISN 7 were put on the AbilityOne list prior to the creation of the Rule of Two, the contracts were not subject to the Rule of Two, and the VA was obliged to purchase available services from the AbilityOne list without first performing a Rule of Two analysis.

Basis for Protest

PDS objects to the VA’s position they may issue new contracts in VISN 2 and VISN 7, using the AbilityOne list, without first performing a Rule of Two analysis after the existing contracts expire.

Protest Sustained

The Court of Federal Claims starts by noting statutory interpretation requires deference to the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”  In other words, where a statute is unambiguous, the interpretation of the statute is not negotiable.     The scope of the VBA was previously analyzed in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1969, (2016).  In Kingdomware, the U.S. Supreme Court quoted two sections of the VBA, including, “[A] contracting officer of the Department shall award contracts on the basis of competition restricted to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans” where two or more veteran owned businesses can provide the services or products sought.  Further, “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. . . “

Additionally, the U. S. Supreme Court reviewed the legislative history of the VBA.  Of particular note, an early version of the VBA included “an explicit exception for contracts under the JWOD.”  This exception was eliminated from the final legislation.  Given the removal of the exception for AbilityOne, it is apparent Congress did not intend an AbilityOne exception in the VBA statute.  

Finally, the VBA is a more specific statute, in that the VBA is VA specific.  Where a specific statute is enacted after a more general statute, the specific statute takes precedence.  

In light of these considerations, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Rule of Two always takes precedence over the AbilityOne list for procurements of products and services for the VA and, accordingly, PDS’ protest was sustained.

Tagged

Contracting PreferenceJavits-Wagner-O’Day ActRule of Two

Share

Related Posts

Hidden Traps in an RFP and Pre-Award Protests

July 10, 2020

Matter of: Goodwill Industries of the Valleys: SourceAmerica

December 20, 2017

American Medical Equipment Company, B-407113; B-407113.2, November 8, 2012

January 30, 2013

Alternative Contracting Enterprises, LLC; Pierce First Medical, B-406265, B-406266, B-406291, B-406291.2, B-406318.1, B-406318.2, B-406343, B-406356, B-406357, B-406369, B-406371, B-406374, B-406400, B-406404, B-406428, March 26, 2012

April 4, 2012

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845