VSBC PROTEST OF: JANEL INDUSTRIES, PROTESTOR

*1 On October 11, 2023, Janel Industries (Protestor) filed the above-captioned protest, challenging the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) status of US Milpack & Manufacturing Corporation (Milpack) for Solicitation No. SPE7M823T4239. On February 5, 2024, the Contracting Officer (CO) forwarded the protest to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA).

*1 On February 8, 2024, OHA ordered Protestor to show cause, no later than February 16, 2024, why the protest should not be dismissed for lack of specificity. (Order to Show Cause at 1-2.) OHA explained that “although Protester questions whether Milpack is eligible for SDVOSB, Protestor fails to identify any reason(s) to believe how Milpack is not owned and/or controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans.” (Id.) On February 12, 2024, Protestor filed a response and alleges Milpack “marked ‘NO’ next to SDVOSB Certification” on its SAM.gov Registration and SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS). (Email from K. Courtney (Feb. 12, 2024).) Protestor concludes SAM and SBA's DSBS is sufficient information and “it is the duty of [Defense Logistics Agency] and the SBA to further evaluate a company representing themselves to be an SDVOSB.” (Id.)

*1 I find Protestor's allegations unpersuasive. Protestor asserts Milpack is not an eligible SDVOSB without presenting specific facts or allegations other than Milpack's information on Sam.gov and SBA's DSBS. OHA has repeatedly determined that “merely providing documents without specifying the allegations is insufficient.” (VSBC Protest of Tomahawk Sourcing, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-318-P (2023) (finding protest nonspecific where protestor asserted the business concern was not a SDVOSB by providing an unverified screenshot where the business concern identified itself as a “Self Certified Small Disadvantaged Business”); see also VSBC Protest of Freedom Technology Partners, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-321-P (2023) (finding protest nonspecific where protestor, based on screenshot images from the VetCert database, asserted the protested concerns were not SDVs because they were not designated in the SBA's Veteran Certification Program (VetCert) database).) Thus, Protestor fails to offer credible evidence to suggest Milpack is not owned and/or controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans. A request that OHA investigate a concern's SDVOSB status, without any specific facts or supporting evidence, is insufficient. 13 C.F.R. § 134.1005(a)(2); see also VSBC Protest of MicroTechnologies LLC, SBA No. VSBC-324-P (2023).

*2 Further, Protestor fails to bring valid grounds for a protest under 13 C.F.R. § 134.1003(a)-(d). A concern's status may be challenged based on (1) the veteran status of the principal(s), (2) ownership and control of the concern by a veteran, (3) whether the concern is in compliance with the ostensible subcontractor rule, or (4) if the concern is a JV, whether the concern meets the JV requirements of 13 C.F.R. § 128.402. 13 C.F.R. § 134.1003(a)-(d); see also VSBC Protest of Veterans Command, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-256-P (2023) (“The regulation provides that a concern's status as an SDVO SB or VOSB may be challenged in a protest to OHA, but only upon the grounds set out in the regulation. See 13 C.F.R. § 134.1003.”) A protest must be based on one of these grounds and a failure to certify as an SDVOSB with SBA's VetCert or register as an SDVOSB with SAM.gov alone are not grounds for a SDVOSB protest.

*2 Accordingly, the protest is DISMISSED. This is the final agency action of the U.S. Small Business Administration. 15 U.S.C. § 657f(f)(6)(A); 13 C.F.R. § 134.1007(b).