RBVETCO v. United States: Protest Fails Over Lack of Standing

In RBVETCO, LLC v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims reviewed a protest challenging the award of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contract to a competing firm. RBVETCO, LLC objected to the award, citing concerns about the awardee’s eligibility under the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) program. The court dismissed the protest, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing and did not file the challenge within the required time period.

Solicitation and Award Timeline

The VA issued Solicitation No. 36C26323Q0267 for services at the VA Black Hills Health Care System in South Dakota. The solicitation was a set-aside for SDVOSBs verified through the Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE). Offers were due by January 27, 2023. The award went to Alamo Integrated Systems, Inc., which was verified in the Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database at the time of award.

The contracting officer issued a notice of intent to award on February 6, 2023. The contracting officer also contacted the Small Business Administration (SBA) to request a Certificate of Competency (COC) for Alamo after evaluating the company’s responsibility. The SBA issued the COC on February 16, and the VA finalized the award that same day.

RBVETCO’s Protest and Basis for Challenge

RBVETCO filed a protest on March 6, 2023, alleging that Alamo did not qualify as an SDVOSB under VA regulations. RBVETCO argued that Alamo failed to meet control and ownership requirements and should not have been eligible for the award.

RBVETCO acknowledged that it had not filed a status protest with the SBA. Instead, it asserted that the VA failed to properly verify Alamo’s eligibility and that the procurement should be canceled.

Court’s Analysis of Jurisdiction and Timeliness

The Court of Federal Claims examined whether RBVETCO met the requirements to bring a post-award protest. To have standing, the protestor needed to show it was an interested party directly affected by the award. The court found that RBVETCO failed to demonstrate it had a substantial chance of award because it had not challenged the solicitation before the closing date and had not filed a proper status protest.

Under the Blue & Gold Fleet doctrine, parties are required to raise known solicitation errors before the deadline for offers. The court determined that RBVETCO’s challenge to Alamo’s eligibility and the VA’s responsibility evaluation fell under this rule. Because RBVETCO had access to the solicitation and was aware of its terms, its post-award protest was untimely.

The court also concluded that Alamo had a valid CVE verification at the time of the award. The decision emphasized that the SBA issued a COC affirming Alamo’s responsibility, and that RBVETCO did not challenge the COC through appropriate administrative channels.

Dismissal and Final Ruling

The court dismissed the protest for lack of standing and failure to meet the timing requirements under applicable procurement rules. The ruling did not address the merits of Alamo’s SDVOSB status or eligibility but focused solely on procedural grounds.

SDVOSB Certification and Eligibility Guidance

If your business is preparing to compete for set-aside contracts or responding to a verification challenge, Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC can assist with CVE registration, eligibility reviews, and SDVOSB certification procedures for government contracting.