The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has dismissed a bid protest filed by Millbrook Support Services, Inc. against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The court ruled that Millbrook was ineligible for a Task Order due to not qualifying as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) under applicable regulations. This decision affects Millbrook's ability to compete for contracts set aside for veteran-owned businesses and highlights the stringent eligibility requirements imposed by the VA.

The case, Millbrook Support Services, Inc. v. United States, was filed under docket number 26-398. The court's ruling comes after Millbrook challenged the VA's determination that it did not meet the necessary criteria to be awarded Task Order No. 36C25626F0014. The significance of this ruling lies in its implications for small businesses seeking federal contracts, particularly those owned by veterans.

Background

Millbrook Support Services, Inc. is a company that provides various services, including nursing services, and it was awarded a Federal Supply Schedule Contract (FSS Contract) in July 2021. This contract had a performance period running through July 2026. In April 2025, the VA issued a request for quotations for a Task Order to provide nursing services at a VA health center in New Orleans, Louisiana. The solicitation was specifically set aside for SDVOSB concerns, which meant only businesses meeting certain criteria could compete.

After submitting a bid, Millbrook was initially selected for the Task Order on November 10, 2025. However, the VA rescinded this award just a few days later after receiving complaints from other bidders questioning Millbrook's SDVOSB status. The VA reviewed Millbrook's eligibility and concluded that the company did not qualify as an SDVOSB under the relevant North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code at the time of the award. Millbrook subsequently filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which was dismissed, leading to the current court case.

The Ruling

The court ruled in favor of the government, granting the motion to dismiss Millbrook's claims. Judge Loren A. Smith stated, "The VA did not err when considering the plain and unambiguous language of the applicable VAAR regulations." The court found that Millbrook did not meet the eligibility requirements set forth by the VA, which include being a verified SDVOSB at both the time of bid submission and the time of award.

In its ruling, the court emphasized that the VA's regulations impose stricter requirements than those of the Small Business Administration (SBA). The court noted that while Millbrook claimed it should be considered an eligible SDVOSB based on its earlier contract status, it failed to demonstrate that it met the current criteria at the time the Task Order was awarded. The court stated, "Millbrook was required to meet the VA’s procurement regulations... at the time the Task Order was awarded. This Millbrook did not do."

Impact

This ruling underscores the importance of compliance with specific eligibility standards for businesses seeking federal contracts, especially those designated for veteran-owned enterprises. The decision reinforces the VA's authority to establish its own regulations for SDVOSB eligibility, which can differ from the broader SBA guidelines. This case may set a precedent for future bid protests involving SDVOSB status and the interpretation of eligibility criteria under VA regulations.

For Millbrook, the dismissal means it will not receive the Task Order and may face challenges in pursuing similar contracts in the future if it does not meet the stringent requirements. The ruling also serves as a reminder to other small businesses about the critical need to ensure compliance with all regulatory standards when bidding for government contracts.

What's Next

Millbrook has the option to appeal the court's decision. However, the outcome of such an appeal is uncertain, and it would require demonstrating that the court erred in its interpretation of the law or the facts of the case. Additionally, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.