The M_P_U Network

A Tool For People That Mean Business!

TO A SELECT FEW:


WILFONG'S THOUGHT OF THE DAY:
APRIL 18, 2009

ISSUE STATEMENT NO. 4021: SDVOSBs HAVE A RIGHTEOUS CAUSE…

One of the major items that’s gonna be on the table at the NASDB Seminar and The NASDB BrainTrust is gonna be The SDVOB issue. Many of you know that the Ol” Sarge is a service-disabled veteran from the Korean Conflict. Former S/Sgt Henry T. Wilfong Jr. US 56-238182, 18th Airborne Corps, has been drawing 20% disability pay, since the mid-50s. I would not accept a medical discharge, so I served out the end of my time on a “light duty slip”. Though I was relieved of doing the things I used to have to do, I still served. Being young and rather “naive”, I figured serving less than my time, would have been a "bad mark” of some kind.

I did not “claim” disability because I didn’t feel I was disabled. I did not really think about the money that kept coming because I didn’t really get it. Since all my draft papers and service related stuff had my home address as that of my parents, my stuff went to their home. And, since my Papa’s name was the same as mine, my Mama just put the check in his account. It was that simple, until he passed on, last year.

The country does not OWE me a thing, not for my military service. It’s been my pleasure to serve this great land I live in. But, then, there are a lot of other folk other than me. And, as I’ve become more active in “their” movement, The Ol’ Sarge is getting an “attitude”. The article written by one of my fellow SDVOSB Brothers really brought some interesting reactions from a lot of us:

“The SDVOSB Spending Requirement Is Now Greater Than $30 Billion Dollars

Posted by Walter Cotton III on April 4, 2009 at 9:33am

Most VOSBs simply don't understand what their Statutory Right are under the Code of Federal Regulation, and therefore you are needlessly suffering through the Federal Contracting process. Many expend a material number of cycles majoring in the minor thing, while the knowledge non-VOSBs feed on contracts that by law belong to your.

A more important challenge is the fact that the people who are paid to provide our community guidance on these issues – either don't know the issues and opportunities, don't want to know them or if they knew they wouldn't tell you...

Yet, I digress, that's a topic for another discussion...

We need to face the facts. It has been more than 10 since PL 106-50 was passed and we still have not reached the halfway point on the 3% 'spending requirement.' Irrespective of the fact that 13CFR125.19 was updated in 2003, as a part of the passage of PL 108-183, and produced a set-aside advantage for our community.

Wait; are you telling me that you don't know what power 125.19 places in your hands? There you have it...

People, we need to wake-up and simply break this cycle of insanity. Here is what 125.19 can do for you.

If a contract is being competed as a set-aside for WOSB, SDB or Total SB (and you have the ability to fulfill the requirement...) you can force the Contracting Officer to stop the competition and reissue it as a SDVOSB Set-Aside. That's right, I said force them to stop the competition.

We are talking about more than $30 Billion dollars worth of annual contract awards, which is well north of the 3% spending goal. Moreover, you have had this power since 2003, but I bet your advisors have never told you about 125.19 or how important FAR 19.502 (b) is to your business.

Check it out for yourself, and let the Network know what you find...

W

Here’s what The Ol’ Sarge wrote

Reply by Henry T, Wilfong Jr 1 day ago

Walter makes good observations on the "potential" for SDVOB contracting opportunities. Unfortunately the practice has not taken place. We need to "remind" the right people as to their responsibilities to us. We will have that chance on April 23rd, at the Seminar in D.C. And, at the April 24th BrainTust the next day.

We've had calibration firing. Now, let's "Fire for effect!"

We will continue that firing on the 23rd and 24th.

Join us if you will, April 23rd…at The Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill…

We've got some chits we need to honor…..

THE WILFONG HOUR-EVERY MONDAY | - 1PM EST--12 NOON CST ~ Dial-in Number: (218) 339-2626 (The Participant Access Code is: 408191#).

The struggle continues, until we succeed-and we shall-YES WE CAN!!!!!

Henry T. Wilfong Jr., MBA, CPA

Views: 11

Comment

You need to be a member of The M_P_U Network to add comments!

Join The M_P_U Network

Comment by Maxwell Ramsey on January 8, 2010 at 8:33pm
Mr. Willfong: SBA reports the situation as even more lopsided than we think. SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, all seem to be making the mark ahead of SDVOSB (save the VA by a significant margin):
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/fy2008g...
Comment by Henry T, Wilfong Jr on December 23, 2009 at 4:04pm
Maxwell,

Send me your email and i'll add you to my current Netter list of NASDB.

Hank
Comment by Henry T, Wilfong Jr on December 23, 2009 at 4:01pm
Maxwell,

I believe you're right in that if SBA has clomped on this for the 8(a) Program, then. SDVOBs and all others are S.O.L. By the way I don't have a problem with that. I don't believe we should be taking away from the 8(a) Program. Rather, it is ABOVE ALL, the "most equal" of all.

Read the proposed regulations and make sure that we improve the programs so that they will promote the competitive viability of the firms owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
Comment by Maxwell Ramsey on December 23, 2009 at 3:50pm
Mr. Willfong: In reading Title 13, Part 125, Sec. 125.19 cites the following:
(a) The contracting officer first must review a requirement to
determine whether it is excluded from SDVO contracting pursuant to
Sec. 125.18.
(b) If the contracting officer determines that Sec. 125.18 does not
apply, the contracting officer should consider setting aside the
requirement for 8(a), HUBZone, or SDVO SBC participation before
considering setting aside the requirement as a small business set-aside.
(c) If the CO decides to set-aside the requirement for competition
restricted to SDVO SBCs, the CO must:
(1) Have a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible SDVO
SBCs will submit offers; and
(2) Determine that award can be made at fair market price.

Now, 125.18 cites:
A contracting activity may not make a requirement available for a
SDVO contract if:
(a) ...
(b) An 8(a) participant currently is performing that requirement or
SBA has accepted that requirement for performance under the authority of
the section 8(a) program, unless SBA has consented to release of the
requirement from the section 8(a) program.

I do not see where we can demand a change be made once the solicitation has been issued, or am I missing a bigger picture here? It would seem to me that the time for the SDVOSB to throw in its interest is to team with other SDVOSB and provide a reasonable expectation that 125.19 (c) (1) would be fulfilled. Other than that, I'm not seeing the teeth. (?)
Comment by Henry T, Wilfong Jr on April 25, 2009 at 2:55pm
Those of you who missed the NASDB Seminar in D.C. on the 23rd-well, ya'll missed an excellent opportunity for us to indicate our "numbers" and strength. Richard Portis, Aaron Pattrick, Bob Armstead, Valerie Lewis and The Ol, Sarge represented SDVOBs well.

But, more of us have gotta show up in force at selective events. NASDB's Seminar was one of the "must" ones.

Photos

Loading…
  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2012   Created by Walter Cotton III.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service