38 C.F.R. § 74.4
Who does CVE consider to control a veteran-owned small business?
Control is determined in accordance with 13 CFR part 125. However, where 13 CFR part 125 is limited to SDVOSBs, CVE applies the same control criteria to firms seeking verified VOSB status.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2022 · leading case: United States v. Gorski, 880 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2018).
United States v. Gorski, 880 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2018). “See 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (2010); 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (2008); 13 C.”
Cs-360, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Vet. Affairs, 846 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.D.C. 2012). “” 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (i)(4). Citing this provision, the CVE found that, “[s]ince [CS360] has only one full-time employee, .”
United States v. Gorski, 807 F.3d 451 (1st Cir. 2015). “10 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (a), (c)(1). Before February 8, 2010, the service-disabled veteran owners were not required to work full time but had to “show sustained and significant time invested in the business.”
KWV, Inc. v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 448 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “Pre-award bid protest; motion for preliminary injunction; disparate intra-agency decisions regarding the level of control exercised by a veteran owning a small business; evidence of “control” within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 OPINION AND ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge.”
Kwv, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 119 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “Pre-award bid protest; challenge to agency’s disqualification of veteran-owned small business from participating in VA’s Veterans First Contracting Program; application of “control” within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 OPINION AND ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge.”
United States v. Gorski, 36 F. Supp. 3d 256 (D. Mass. 2014). “38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (c)(1); 13 C.F.R. § 125.”
Ambuild Co., LLC v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 10 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “De-Chick did not control AmBuild as required by 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (e) and that AmBuild did not meet the size requirements for a SDVOSB.”
Kwv, Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 534 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “) see also 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (b) (explicating factors relevant to control).”
CS-360, LLC v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 488 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “The OSDBU found that plaintiffs Operating Agreement potentially gave non-service disabled veterans (“SDV”) control of the company, in violation of 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (f)(1), (f)(2)(h) (2010) (requiring veteran control of a board of directors, of a company, and any executive…”
BlueStar Energy Servs., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 607 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (a). As explained in the CVE letter, the service-disabled veteran does not directly own plaintiff; rather, the service-disabled veteran owns BlueStar Energy Holdings, Inc.”
CS-360, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 101 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.D.C. 2015). “Based on several factors taken together, the agency concluded that non-veterans control or have the power to control CS360 in violation of 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (i). The factors on which the agency based this conclusion include a provision in CS360’s operating agreement that allows…”
Lw Constr. of Charleston, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “Since it is very apparent that LWCC Operating Agreement prohibits you full control of LWCC, CVE determined [sic] has determined that LWCC does not meet the requirements of 38 CFR § 74.4 (i)(1). The CVE stated that “[g]iven the evidence listed above, CVE finds issues with regard…”
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.