38 C.F.R. § 74.2

What are the eligibility requirements a concern must meet for the VIP Verification Program?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Ownership and control. A small business concern must be unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more eligible veterans, service-disabled veterans or surviving spouses, have completed the online VIP database forms, submitted required supplemental documentation at http://www.va.gov/osdbu, and have been examined by VA's CVE. Such businesses appear in the VIP database as “verified”.

(b) Good character and exclusions in System for Award Management (SAM). Individuals having an ownership or control interest in verified businesses must have good character. Debarred or suspended concerns or concerns owned or controlled by debarred or suspended persons are ineligible for VIP Verification. Concerns owned or controlled by a person(s) who is currently incarcerated, or on parole or probation (pursuant to a pre-trial diversion or following conviction for a felony or any crime involving business integrity) are ineligible for VIP Verification. Concerns owned or controlled by a person(s) who is formally convicted of a crime set forth in 48 CFR 9.406-2(b)(3) are ineligible for VIP Verification during the pendency of any subsequent legal proceedings. If, after verifying a participant's eligibility, the person(s) controlling the participant is found to lack good character, CVE will immediately remove the participant from the VIP database, notwithstanding the provisions of § 74.22.

(c) False statements. If, during the processing of an application, CVE determines, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, that an applicant has knowingly submitted false information, regardless of whether correct information would cause CVE to deny the application, and regardless of whether correct information was given to CVE in accompanying documents, CVE will deny the application. If, after verifying the participant's eligibility, CVE discovers that false statements or information have been submitted by a firm, CVE will remove the participant from the VIP database immediately, notwithstanding the provisions of § 74.22. Whenever CVE determines that the applicant submitted false information, the matter will be referred to the VA Office of Inspector General for review. In addition, CVE will request that debarment proceedings be initiated by the Department.

(d) Financial obligations. Neither an applicant firm nor any of its eligible individuals that fails to pay significant financial obligations, including unresolved tax liens and defaults on Federal loans or State or other government assisted financing, owed to the federal government, the District of Columbia or any state, district, or territorial government of the United States, is eligible for VIP Verification. If after verifying the participant's eligibility CVE discovers that the participant no longer satisfies this requirement, CVE will remove the participant from the VIP database in accordance with § 74.22.

(e) Protest Decisions or other negative findings. Any firm verified in the VIP database that is found to be ineligible by a SDVOSB/VOSB status protest decision will be immediately removed from the VIP database, notwithstanding the provisions of § 74.22. Any firm verified in the VIP database that is found to be ineligible due to a U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) protest decision or other negative finding may be immediately removed from the VIP database, notwithstanding the provisions of § 74.22. Until such time as CVE receives official notification that the firm has proven that it has successfully overcome the grounds for the determination, that the decision is overturned on appeal, or the firm applies for and receives verified status from CVE, the firm will not be eligible to participate in the 38 U.S.C. 8127 program.

(f) System for Award Management (SAM) registration. All applicants for VIP Verification must be registered in SAM at http://www.sam.gov prior to application submission.

[83 FR 48229, Sept. 24, 2018]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2023 · leading case: Vets. Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vets. Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 8× “See 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (a) (VA); see also 13 C.”

Vets. Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 613 (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 6× “14(b); 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (e). Veterans thereafter provided additional information to SBA, including its shareholder agreement.”

CS-360, LLC v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 488 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 10× “38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (e) (2010). “Once an application, a request for reconsideration, or an appeal to a cancellation notice, as applicable, has been *492 denied, the applicant or participant shall be required to wait for a period of 6 months before a new application will be…”

United States v. Gorski, 807 F.3d 451 (1st Cir. 2015). “38 C.F.R. § 74.2 . The essence of the criminal case against Gorski is that Gorski, a non-veteran, made false statements about the ownership, operation, and control of Legion to appear to be in compliance with the SDVOSB eligibility requirements while retaining effective…”

Cs-360, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Vet. Affairs, 846 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.D.C. 2012). “” 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (a). Thus, eligibility turns on the twin requirements of ownership and control.”

BlueStar Energy Servs., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 607 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “38 C.F.R. § 74.2 , in turn, lists “the eligibility requirements for VIP verification.”

Vets. Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 7× “VA adopted 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (e) in 2010, 4 and, with this single provision, protest decisions by SBA, presumably applying SBA’s own regulations, could potentially displace VA’s cancellation and removal process without accounting for the differences between the two agencies’…”

Vets. Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 5× “Anomaly Created by VA’s Adoption of 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (e) A confounding aspect of these dueling regulatory programs arises from the VA’s adoption of 38 C.”

United States v. NEARY (D.N.J. 2021). · cites it 3× “38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (a). The VA CVE then reviews a company’s submissions to determine whether it meets the VA’s requirements for SDVOSB status.”

Lw Constr. of Charleston, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). · cites it 2× “29 (2018), the part of the United States Code which codifies the VA’s small business regulations, including 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 , 9 ownership and control requirements identified under 38 CFR Part 74, a review of LWCC records was conducted,” and “consisted of an extensive review of…”

Scollick v. Narula (D.D.C. 2022). · cites it 2× “” 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (a) (2015).° A service-disabled veteran “owns” a small business when at least 51% of the concern (company) is “unconditionally and directly” owned by him.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— 38 C.F.R. § 74.2(a) — 3 cases

Vets. Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Anomaly Created by VA’s Adoption of 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (e) A confounding aspect of these dueling regulatory programs arises from the VA’s adoption of 38 C.”

Vets. Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “VA adopted 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (e) in 2010, 4 and, with this single provision, protest decisions by SBA, presumably applying SBA’s own regulations, could potentially displace VA’s cancellation and removal process without accounting for the differences between the two agencies’…”

Sandeep Yadav v. Rajeeva Agrawal (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.