December 24, 2014 by cs
The United States has filed a complaint against Orlando, Florida, based Air Ideal Inc. and its owner, Kim Amkraut, for allegedly making false statements to the Small Business Administration (SBA) to obtain certification as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) company.
Under the federal HUBZone program, companies that maintain their principal office in a designated HUBZone and meet certain other requirements can apply to the SBA for certification as a HUBZone small business company. HUBZone companies can then use this certification when bidding on government contracts. In certain cases, government agencies will restrict competition for a contract to HUBZone-certified companies.
The complaint alleges that Air Ideal and Kim Amkraut originally applied to the HUBZone program in 2010 by claiming that Air Ideal’s principal office was located in a designated HUBZone. The complaint further alleges that, in fact, this location was a “virtual office” where no Air Ideal employees worked and Air Ideal was actually located in a non-HUBZone location. Allegedly, the defendants not only misrepresented the location of Air Ideal’s principal office to the SBA, but also submitted to the SBA a fabricated lease agreement for its purported HUBZone office.
The complaint alleges that Air Ideal used its fraudulently-procured HUBZone certification to obtain contracts from the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Interior that were worth millions of dollars. Each of those contracts had been set aside for qualified HUBZone companies. The complaint asserts claims against Air Ideal and Kim Amkraut under the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
The United States filed its complaint in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act. Under the act, a private citizen can sue on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. The United States is entitled to intervene in the lawsuit, as it has done here.
The case is U.S. ex rel. Hopson v. Air Ideal, Inc. and Kim Amkraut, No. 6:13-cv-775-Orl-37GJK (M.D. Fla.).
The claims asserted against Air Ideal and Kim Amkraut are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
November 11, 2014 by cs
A company called North Florida Shipyards and its president, Matt Self, will pay the U.S. government $1 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by creating a front company, Ind-Mar Services Inc., in order to be awarded Coast Guard contracts that were designated for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), the Justice Department announced today. North Florida Shipyards has facilities in Jacksonville, Florida.
To qualify as a SDVOSB on Coast Guard ship repair contracts, a company must be operated and managed by service disabled veterans and must perform at least 51 percent of the labor. The government alleged that North Florida created Ind-Mar merely as a contracting vehicle and that North Florida performed all the work and received all the profits. The government further alleged that if the Coast Guard and the Small Business Administration (SBA) had known that Ind-Mar was nothing but a front company, the Coast Guard would not have awarded it contracts to repair five ships.
In December 2013, the SBA suspended North Florida, Matt Self, Ind-Mar and three others from all government contracting. In April 2014, North Florida and Matt Self entered into an administrative agreement with the SBA in which they admitted to having created and operated Ind-Mar in violation of its Coast Guard contracts and SBA statutes and regulations.
“Special programs to assist service disabled veterans are an important part of the SBA’s business development initiative,” said U.S. Attorney A. Lee Bentley III for the Middle District of Florida. “False claims such as this undermine the integrity of this vital program and, where found, will be vigorously pursued by our Office.”
“This settlement sends a strong message to those driven by greed to fraudulently obtain access to contracting opportunities set-aside for deserving small businesses owned and operated by service disabled veterans,” said Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson for the SBA. “We are committed to helping ensure that only eligible service disabled veteran owned small businesses benefit from that SBA program.”
The settlement resolves allegations originally filed in a lawsuit by Robert Hallstein and Earle Yerger under the qui tam, or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery. The act also allows the government to intervene and take over the action, as it did in this case. Hallstein and Yerger will receive $180,000.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, except to the extent that North Florida and Matt Self have admitted to the conduct in their agreement with the SBA.
The case is captioned United States ex rel. Yerger, et al, v. North Florida Shipyards, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-464J-32 MCR (M.D. Fla.).
June 16, 2014 by cs
A new rule would limit the amount contractors could charge the government for any of their employees’ salaries under cost-reimbursement contracts.
Currently contractors can charge back $487,000 for employee salaries, but the ceiling only applies to top senior executives. With the new Federal Acquisition Regulation rule, that limit would be expanded to all employees including scientists and engineers.
The final rule, issued May 30, would only affect the Defense Department, NASA and the Coast Guard, and applies retroactively to compensation costs on government contracts signed after Dec. 31, 2011.
Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/contractor-pay-cap-will-apply-all-employees-under-new-rule/2014-06-03
June 24, 2013 by cs
Newnan, Ga., resident Arthur W. Singleton was sentenced Thursday to two years in prison for fraudulently obtaining several government construction contracts reserved for veterans with service-related disabilities.
He also was ordered to pay $181,000 in restitution.
According to U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates, the charges and other information presented in court: Singleton owned a construction firm named “Singleton Enterprises” and had more than 30 years of experience in the construction industry.
In 2007, Singleton, 63, approached a Vietnam veteran (who was bedridden from surgeries related to his combat injuries) and proposed staring a business to exploit the veteran’s disabled status to get federal government contracts that were reserved exclusively for companies owned and run by service-disabled veterans. When the veteran agreed to the scheme, Singleton formed two companies using the veteran’s name.
Keep reading this article at: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2013/06/20/singleton-enterprises-owner-gets-two.html
November 16, 2011 by cs
A federal grand jury indicted a Luthersville man this week on charges of getting $2.85 million in government contracts by fraudulently claiming his business was controlled by a veteran.
Arthur Wayne Singleton, a 62-year old construction contractor, defrauded programs that set aside certain government contracts for businesses owned and controlled by disabled veterans, according to a federal indictment.
“This defendant allegedly took advantage of a service-disabled veteran of the Vietnam War, using the veteran’s name and disabled status to gain millions of dollars in federal contracts,” U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said. “Fraud like this deprives legitimate disabled veteran-owned small businesses of the opportunity to enter into construction contracts with the government.”
Attempts to reach Singleton or his lawyer Brian Steel for comment were unsuccessful.
The contract program is an important resource for disabled vets because they are often discriminated against in employment and business opportunities, said David Autry, spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans in Washington DC.
“For whatever reason,” he said, “people prefer not to do business with them.”
Singleton approached a bed-ridden Vietnam vet, identified in the indictment only as “GT”, in 2007 and proposed they form a joint venture called GMT Mechanical that could take advantage of set-aside construction contracts from the federal government, according to the indictment. GT suffers from severe knee injuries and other health issues as a result of his service. Singleton, who had more than 30 years of construction and federal contract experience, completely controlled the enterprise, the indictment said, and federal rules required the disabled veteran to control the business and own 51 percent.
Singleton secured contracts from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction projects around the country. According to the indictment, Singleton paid GT $17,964 because he said he had “to make it look as though GT was part of the business.”
The U.S. Attorney’s office has not indicted GT but declined to say whether he was a cooperating witness.
The payment to GT followed an inquiry by the VA, which sent a letter in February 2008 stating GMT Mechanical wasn’t eligible for “service-disabled veteran-owned contracts” because GT didn’t control the business or own 51 percent of it. But Singleton went ahead and submitted bids for a $290,000 contract in Iowa with the Agriculture Department, a $96,000 contract in Wyoming with the Homeland Security Department and a $1.375 million contract in North Dakota with the Defense Department and forged GT’s signature on the bids, according to the indictment.
— by Steve Visser, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5:41 p.m. Thursday, November 10, 2011. Find this article at: http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/man-accused-of-defrauding-1222311.html
October 27, 2011 by cs
A proposed rule to curb agencies’ little used capacity to offer higher payments to needier contractors “will have no impact on the government’s ability or commitment to drive contracting opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses,” Dan Gordon, administrator of the White House Office of Federal Procurement Policy, said Friday.
In a blog post for the Office of Management and Budget, Gordon sought to reassure some in the minority business community that a proposed regulation issued in September by the Small Business Administration is a routine “housekeeping” tool designed to catch the law up with a 2008 court ruling that declared such price premiums unconstitutional.
“The proposed rule in no way changes the fundamental policies, practices or programs that agencies have been using in recent years to achieve strong SDB
participation in the federal marketplace, including the goal of awarding 5 percent of federal procurement dollars to SDBs,” Gordon wrote.
The affected agencies — the Defense Department, NASA and the U.S. Coast Guard — have not used price premiums to attract disadvantaged small contractors in years, Gordon noted. But the administration has “been working with the Minority Business Development Agency to strengthen the bond between contracting, small business and program offices at every agency,” Gordon wrote. “Since the beginning of [fiscal] 2009, agencies have awarded more than $85 billion in contracts to SDBs, exceeding the goal of awarding at least 5 percent of contract dollars to SDBs.” In fiscal 2010, he added, contract awards to small disadvantaged businesses accounted for 7.95 percent of all eligible contract dollars, “well above the goal.”
Gordon’s clarification came as the Obama administration readied a new set of executive actions designed to spur job creation in large and small businesses
while Congress debates the president’s larger proposed jobs package.
The perception among some that ending premium payments to disadvantaged businesses was a pullback in the administration’s commitment was rejected by Molly Brogan, vice president of public affairs for the National Small Business Association. “At the end of the day, small businesses just want a level playing field,” she told Government Executive. “Ensuring that small businesses — including SDB businesses — have a fair opportunity to compete for federal
dollars ought to be the No. 1 goal. We don’t believe this new rule will change [that] in any way.”
Raul Espinosa, founder of a Jacksonville, Fla. – based university nonprofit called the Fairness in Procurement Alliance, which has been pressing for stronger rules on accelerating payments to small disadvantaged businesses, said he was grateful for the administration’s overall effort, but worries it might be “lip service.” Changes “will mean nothing unless they’re codified into the federal acquisition regulation and referred to in actual contracts,” he
— by Charles S. Clark – Government Executive – October 24, 2011 – http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49130&dcn=e_tma
April 13, 2010 by cs
Few would disagree that federal contracts set aside for small businesses should go to small businesses — not corporate behemoths.
And yet it seems to happen again and again. Take one recent example: in late December, an IT company named QSS, a subsidiary of Dell Inc., landed a small-business contract for nearly $21 million from the U.S. Coast Guard.
What’s more, QSS — which in 2006 was purchased by Ross Perot’s “Perot Systems” before Perot was gobbled up by Dell last year — is listed in a federal database as a “self-certified small disadvantaged business.”
How can this be? After all, Dell employs some 76,000 people, and the government’s definition of a small business is one that, in this particular industry, employs no more than 1,000.
The answer depends on whom you ask. The most vocal small business activists insist that the government is acting negligently, even nefariously. Regulators in the federal Small Business Administration counter that the issue is mostly the byproduct of coding mistakes and mergers — human errors that the agency purports to be addressing aggressively under the Obama administration.
Whatever the case, the example with QSS — which Hispanic Business Magazine found through a simple search in the federal contracting database FedMine.Us — isn’t an isolated event. [GTPAC note: fedmine.us is a privately-operated, not government-operated web site.]
Other companies that have landed small-business contracts include General Dynamics — the fifth largest defense contractor in the world — Xerox, Office Depot, John Deere and McGraw Hill, according to a 2008 report from the Department of Interior’s Office of Inspector General. As for QSS, in 2008 it was the nation’s 28th largest recipient of small business federal contracts, according to FedMine.Us.
The 2008 report found that large corporations received $5.7 million in awards that should have gone to small businesses. But that was just within the Department of Interior. The total amount of small business contracts getting diverted to large corporations every year is difficult to ascertain, given the inherent murkiness of the issue. Some activists say it is well into the billions.
In October, the government organization in charge of watching over the SBA — that is, the SBA’s Office of Inspector General — said this issue is among the SBA’s most serious problems.
“Audits and other governmental studies have shown widespread misreporting by procuring agencies,” the report said. “Many contract awards recorded as going to small firms have actually been performed by larger companies.”
The issue is drawing more and more attention as politicians, economists and pundits talk about boosting small businesses in an effort to create jobs, reduce the unemployment rate and stimulate the lagging economy.
At least two bills are working their way through Congress to address this issue. One is co-authored by a duo of Senate moderates, Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine; the other, by the lesser-known Congressman Henry Johnson, a Georgia Democrat.
By law, the federal government must strive to spend 23 percent of its entire purchasing budget for goods and services on small businesses. That’s a lot of money, seeing how the federal government spends more than half a trillion dollars every year. But by the government’s own admission, it hasn’t been meeting that mark.
It claims to come close. The federal government says it hit 21.5 percent in 2008. (The official report for 2009 hasn’t come out.)
But the American Small Business League, perhaps the nation’s most vocal critic on this issue, scoffs at this contention. Chris Gunn, ASBL’s communications director, insists the true amount is somewhere between 5 and 10 percent.
“The numbers speak to a very different reality,” he told Hispanic Business Magazine.
For starters, he said, the government exempts about a fifth of its purchasing budget from the goal, with the explanation that some contracts are too large for small businesses to handle. This alone, Mr. Gunn said, brings the true percentage down to 17.5 percent.
But Mr. Gunn says the bigger problem is that examples like the case of QSS are happening all the time. And those contracts, like QSS’s $20 million job with the U.S. Coast Guard for homeland security, count towards that 23 percent goal, he said.
In October, the ASBL ran a report, and found that eight of the top 10 small business contract awardees in 2008 were large businesses coded “small.” The ASBL further estimates that at least half of the $93 billion the government says is going to small businesses is actually being diverted to large businesses.
Officials with the federal Small Business Administration, which helps regulate federal contracting to small businesses, say the ASBL’s claims are exaggerated.
“We’re not going to stand for any large business that masquerades as a small business and tries to engage in any malfeasance,” Joe Jordan, the SBA’s associate administrator for government contracting, told Hispanic Business Magazine.
The problem, he said, has more to do with human error. For instance, he said, oftentimes a small business working on a small business contract gets consumed by a corporate giant, and the contracting officer forgets to go back into the database and re-code the business as “other than small.”
Also, after 2012, the problem should abate at least somewhat. That’s because, in July of 2007, a law passed forbidding large corporations from keeping the small business contracts of the small companies swallowed up in acquisitions. But the law grandfathered in, for five years, merger deals made prior to that date. This is what happened with QSS group, which, despite what the federal database says, no longer even exists as a company. (It is really just “Dell.”) That company’s five-year contract with the Coast Guard — which has been renewed every year — expires in late May, said Frank Islam, QSS’s founder and former owner, speaking to Hispanic Business Magazine.
Nonetheless, the phenomenon is a widely recognized problem, and reform efforts have thus far failed to catch hold. This owes in no small part to how the reform advocates themselves are divided. In short, the most vocal and visible activists — such as the ASBL — are out of synch with the most powerful and influential lawmakers putting forth their proposed solutions, such as Senators Landrieu and Snowe.
Ms. Landrieu and Ms. Snowe are the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
When introducing their Small Business Contracting Improvements Act in February, Ms. Landrieu said it would create at least 163,000 jobs.
“In this past year, small businesses accounted for more than 85 percent of job losses,” she said on the floor. “When large businesses get new work they typically spread the work among existing employees. When small businesses get these contracts they must staff up to meet the increased demand.”
But where ASBL is often knocked for being too extreme, Sen. Landrieu’s effort is being criticized by some for being too mild.
Most notably, although the bill includes strong language about the illegality of large companies landing small-business contracts through misrepresentation, it exempts the Department of Defense, which by many accounts has the worst record on this matter.
“DOD is seriously challenged in its contracting to minority and small enterprises,” David Ferreira, vice president of government affairs for the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, told HispanicBusiness Magazine. “They often rely on very large businesses and award them small-business contracts because of loopholes in the law.”
However, Mr. Ferreira said the U.S. Hispanic Chamber is pleased with some aspects of the bill, such as its focus on reducing a phenomenon known as contract bundling. This is when the federal government, for the sake of efficiency, will consolidate several contracts into one super-contract. This often precludes small businesses from competing because they lack the resources for such large jobs.
One particularly unsavory practice related to this is known as “bait and switch” sub-contracting. The term refers to when large corporations, under mandate from the feds, promise to hire, on bundled contracts, sub-contractors that are small businesses or minority-owned, and then renege after winning the job.
It’s a tactic with which Bill Miera, owner of a Hispanic-owned engineering and IT firm in New Mexico with 50 employees, is all too familiar.
For years, Mr. Miera’s Fiore Industries had been winning bids and working on two separate contracts with the U.S. Air Force, worth between $5 million and $10 million a year each.
About 10 years ago, the Air Force bundled one of the contracts into a mega-contract worth around $50 million — far too big for Miera’s firm to handle.
A Fortune 500 company put in for the bid, and in its proposal told the federal government it would be hiring a minority-owned small business — Fiore Industries — as a sub-contractor. (Mr. Miera declined to name the company, citing a reluctance to burn bridges in what is a relatively small industry.)
When the large company got the job, it dropped Fiore Industries and went with another firm, which was Caucasian-owned.
Mr. Miera, a former board member on the U.S. Hispanic Chamber, was forced to lay off five employees. A few years later, it happened again, with another Fortune 500 company, which went even further.
“They started hiring our people to work for them,” he told Hispanic Business Magazine. “They said, ‘If you want to keep your job, you’ve got to work for us.'”
As a result of these two bait-and-switch examples, Fiore Industries’s annual revenues dropped to about $5 million from $8.4 million. It lost about 10 of 50 employees.
Thanks in part to a contract with NASA, Fiore’s revenues have since climbed back to $6.5 million. But the company’s original plan was to be earning $50 million annually by now.
“That hurts, especially when you’ve done good work, and then lose your contract, but not because you’ve done a bad job or your prices are too high,” he told Hispanic Business Magazine.
Mr. Miera said the problem is that the law, as written, has no teeth to punish those who engage in such tactics.
“The large businesses know that,” he said.
For the entirety of the Bush administration, the ASBL, headed up by its colorful leader, Lloyd Chapman — a frequent pundit on cable news networks such as Fox, MSNBC and CNN — carped on the federal government on these issues. It also filed — and won — several lawsuits.
Mr. Chapman claims the Obama administration has been no better.
“I say it’s getting worse, because Obama has refused to close the existing loopholes that all Fortune 500 firms use to get small business contracts,” he told Hispanic Business Magazine.
Mr. Chapman is advocating the federal contracting bill sponsored by Rep. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chapman says he helped write the bill, and typically refers to it as his own.
“My bill has 20 co-sponsors,” he told HispanicBusiness Magazine. (They are mostly House Democrats, but the list does include two Republicans: Ralph Hall of Texas and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.) “It will solve a 10-year-old contracting scandal, won’t increase the deficit and it’s permanent.”
Mr. Chapman and the ASBL are also highly critical of almost every other advocate on this issue. Senator Landrieu’s bill, they say, while well intentioned, gives recalcitrant corporate giants “a pass.” The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is “backed by Fortune 500 companies.” But Mr. Chapman is particularly critical of U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, (D-NY) — chair of the House Small Business Committee, whom he believes has done nothing to address the issue.
“She has chaired the small business committee for three or four years,” he said. “How come she hasn’t proposed legislation to address it?”
He added that Boeing, the world’s largest global aircraft manufacturer, is a major campaign donor to Velazquez and other small business committee members.
“My bill will take $100 million a year in federal small business contracts away from Boeing,” he said.
(Ms. Velazquez’s office did not provide a comment for this story, despite repeated requests from Hispanic Business Magazine.)
For its part, the federal SBA insists that it is working aggressively to fix the problems. By March, of the eight top awardees of small-business contracts that ASBL had highlighted in October, most had been re-coded as “small.”
Also, President Obama has proposed doubling the budget of the SBA, bringing it back to about $1 billion — which is where it was at the start of the Bush administration.
But despite their contention that the problem is most attributable to human error, SBA officials don’t deny that fraud is a factor.
“The U.S. Small Business Administration is making a tremendous effort to combat abuses in the federal contracting program,” SBA spokeswoman Hayley Matz told Hispanic Business Magazine in an email. “SBA recognizes the significant benefits of the program, but also acknowledges that instances of errors and potential abuse have occurred and resulted in negative consequences.”
Source: HispanicBusiness.com. All Rights Reserved – April 8, 2010 – by Rob Kuznia, Staff Writer