Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Bribery, fraud indictment issued for $15 million in set-asides for disabled-veteran and other small businesses

By

Five men have been charged in a 71-count indictment with engaging in conspiracies to defraud several federal agencies by paying bribes and fraudulently obtaining at least $15 million in government contracts they were not entitled to though disabled-veteran set asides and other small business programs.

Indicted are: James A. Clark of Chipley, Florida, who owned several businesses, including Enola Contracting Services, Inc.; Eric L. Hogan of Bonaire, Georgia, who owned P&E Construction, LLC; Kenneth A. Latham of Albany, Georgia, who was employed by the U.S. Navy as a civilian engineering technician; James K. Alford, 55, of Bowling Green, Kentucky, who owned K&S Constructors, Inc., and Harvey Daniels, Jr. of Marianna, Florida, who owned HDJ Security, Inc.

The charges include conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to submit false claims, false claims and major fraud.

Construction projects detailed in the indictment include contracts at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, the VA Medical Center in Louisville, Kentucky, and the NASA Plum Brook Station near Sandusky, Ohio.

According to the indictment:

  • Federal departments and agencies, as directed by Congress, work with the Small Business Administration to award portions of contracts to small businesses, with specific goals for small disadvantaged business, including service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
  • Businesses must register and meet a number of criteria to be classified as small disadvantaged business – also known as the 8(a) program – such as being at least 51 percent owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Businesses must also meet a number of criteria to be classified as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, such as being at least 51 percent owned by a veteran with a service-connected disability who controls the management and daily operations of the company. Service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses are permitted to enter into joint ventures with other companies but must meet specific requirements to do so.
  • The defendants and others engaged in several criminal schemes designed to deprive the government of its right to honest services of its employees through bribes and kickbacks, and to submit false claims and defraud the United States by obtaining government contracts set aside for qualified companies to which they were otherwise ineligible to obtain by fraudulently using proxy and pass-through companies.
  • P&E, through Hogan and Clark, made false statements, misrepresentations and omissions of facts. Hogan on several occasions certified P&E was a service-disabled veteran-owned small business. It also registered as a joint venture with Enola, with Hogan listed as president and Clark as vice president of the joint venture. HDJ Security was enrolled in the 8(a) program. Daniels self-identified as the president of HDJ, the sole owner of the company and to be socially disadvantaged.

In one scheme, Latham accepted a series of bribes and kickbacks from Hogan and Clark – including cash, meals, a hunting trip,  a fence, and an all-terrain vehicle – in return for Latham using his official position with the Navy to benefit Hogan, Clark and their businesses. These benefits included assistance in finding and securing government contracts, approval of invoices for payments to pass-through companies used by Hogan and Clark to obtain set-aside contracts for which their companies were not otherwise eligible, and concealing Clark and Hogan’s use of pass-through companies to obtain bonding.

Another scheme involved defrauding the VA and the TK by fraudulently representing that P&E and Hogan independently qualified for the service-disabled veteran-owned small business program despite Clark’s involvement in providing bonding for and equity ownership in P&E.

Clark, Hogan, Alford, Daniels and others defrauded the government by using purported service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and 8(a) businesses as proxies to bid on and obtain set-aside contracts.

Arrow Construction, which was registered in the 8(a) program, was awarded a $2.8 million contract for work at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, in September 2011. Clark and Arrow officials Kent Reynolds and Jennifer Dillard agreed that about 90 percent of the value of the contract was passed through to Clark and Enola, in violation of the 8(a) program.

HDJ was awarded a contract for work at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, in September 2012. HDJ was paid approximately $2.6 million. Clark, Hogan and Daniels agreed to pass through approximately 95 percent of the value of the contract to Clark, Hogan, Enola and P&E, in violation of the terms of the 8(a) program.

The VA in June 2011 awarded a contract to P&E Construction for work at the VA Medical Center in Louisville, Kentucky. The VA paid P&E approximately $4.5 million that the company would not have received if the VA knew P&E was acting as a pass-through for K&S and that it was back-bonded by Clark and Enola.

P&E submitted a winning bid in February 2013 for a contract for construction services at the NASA Plum Brook Station near Sandusky, Ohio. NASA paid P&E approximately $5.6 million that the company would not have received if NASA knew it was acting as a pass-through for K&S and that P&E was back-bonded by Clark and Enola.

If convicted, the defendants’ sentences will be determined by the Court after review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation.  In all cases the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases it will be less than the maximum.

This case was investigated by National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Office of Inspector General, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General, Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

Readers are reminded that an indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.  A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2 Florida men convicted of selling falsely-labeled body armor

By

A federal jury convicted two Florida men on Feb. 7th on charges of conspiracy, making false claims on the United States government, and wire fraud.

According to court records and evidence presented at trial, Dan Thomas Lounsbury, Jr. of South Palm Beach, and Andres Lopez-Munoz are both executives of Tactical Products Group, LLC (TPG), a Florida-based manufacturer and re-seller of various products to military, law enforcement, and private security clients.  Lounsbury is the founder, owner, and CEO of TPG, while Lopez-Munoz is TPG’s vice president for sales and federal contracting. In 2012, TPG was selected as a subcontractor on a contract to provide certain goods, including 10 sets of hard body armor plates, to the United States government.

The Government had requested a specific type of plate, and Lounsbury and Lopez-Munoz both knew that no substitutions were allowed. Furthermore, Lounsbury and Lopez-Munoz both knew that these plates were intended to protect government personnel in the field. Nevertheless, Lounsbury and Lopez-Munoz worked together to procure cheaper substitute plates, none of which were military-tested, and some of which were far outside of their warranty period. To get the United States government to accept and pay for these plates, Lounsbury and Lopez-Munoz had fake labels created and placed on the armor, falsely representing the plates to be the specific type that the government had ordered.

Lounsbury and Lopez-Munoz face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison when sentenced on May 10, 2019.  Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/executives-convicted-selling-falsely-labeled-body-armor-us-government

Division of N.C. company pays $3.5 million to settle False Claims Act allegations

By

Indal Technologies, Inc. has agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly sold defective helicopter landing systems designed for U.S. Navy destroyers.  Indal, of Ontario, Canada, is a division within Curtiss-Wright Corporation of Charlotte, North Carolina.

Since the 1970s, Indal has produced the Recovery, Assist, Secure, and Traverse (RAST) system attached to U.S. Navy’s Arleigh-Burke class destroyers.  RAST systems allow helicopters to land on destroyers.

The RAST system includes a device that locks a hovering helicopter onto a trolley.  Once locked in place, the helicopter moves along a series of steel track plates into a shipboard hangar.  The trolley must remain securely connected to the track plates, because the helicopter may be required to land during rough seas and high winds.  The Navy’s contracts for RAST systems expressly required track plates made of HY100 steel due to the material’s increased strength, combat ruggedness, and protection from corrosion.

The settlement announced last week resolves allegations that Indal, without informing the Navy, knowingly substituted a different, less expensive type of steel in numerous RAST system track plates delivered to the Navy.

This settlement was the result of a coordinated effort among the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.  The investigation was conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/indal-technologies-agrees-pay-35-million-settle-false-claims-act-allegations

Former company president settles False Claims Act case related to defective bullet proof vests

By

Richard C. Davis, the founder and former president and CEO of Michigan-based Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., recently agreed to resolve claims under the False Claims Act in connection with his role in the sale of defective Zylon bullet-proof vests purchased by the United States for federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, the Justice Department has announced.

Mr. Davis will relinquish his interest in $1.2 million in assets previously frozen by the United States and will pay an additional $125,000 to the United States.  This settlement is based on Mr. Davis’ ability to pay.

Background

Second Chance sold body armor to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies reimbursed by the Department of Justice’s Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program and to federal agencies under contracts with the General Services Administration. The United States alleged that Second Chance’s vests were defective due to the loss of their ballistic capability when exposed to heat and humidity. The United States also alleged that by 2001, Davis was aware that Second Chance’s Zylon body armor was degrading at what he described as a “disappointing” rate.

The United States further alleged that, rather than using a $6 million payment from Toyobo Co. Ltd., the manufacturer of Zylon fiber, to fix the degradation problem, Second Chance pocketed the money and Davis and other Second Chance owners began meeting with various investment bankers in an effort to sell Second Chance. These efforts to sell the company allegedly stopped after a Forest Hills, Pennsylvania police officer was shot through his Second Chance Zylon vest in June 2003. Second Chance filed for bankruptcy in 2004 and was liquidated.

Subsequent tests by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) of Zylon-containing vests found that more than 50 percent of used vests could not stop bullets that they had been certified to stop. The performance of Second Chance Zylon vests were reported to be among the worst.  The NIJ removed all Zylon-containing vests from its list of compliant products, and Zylon is no longer used in ballistic vests.

Settlement

“The Department of Justice will pursue those who attempt to fraudulently profit at the expense of the United States, particularly when the stakes are life or death,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio.  “Bullet proof vests protect the brave men and women of our nation’s law enforcement community, and those who manufacture and sell these products have a solemn duty to ensure their safety and efficacy.”

The settlement resolves, in part, allegations filed in a lawsuit by Aaron Westrick, Ph.D., a former employee of Second Chance, 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 as to the allegations against Davis. Dr. Westrick will receive $28,750 plus a share of whatever the government ultimately recovers from the previously frozen funds.

This settlement is part of a larger investigation of the body armor industry’s use of Zylon.  The United States has previously recovered over $132 million from 18 corporations and individuals who participated in the sale of Zylon body armor. The Civil Division has transferred over $22 million of these recovered funds to the BVP program to replace BVP funds which had been used to purchase Zylon vests. The funds transferred to the BVP program will be used to fund the purchase of additional ballistic-resistant vests for state, local and tribal law enforcement officers. The United States is continuing to pursue claims against Honeywell International Inc., which allegedly sold a laminated version of Zylon for use in police armor.

The investigation and litigation of this matter were handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch; the General Services Administration, Office of the Inspector General; the Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command; the Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General for Tax Administration; the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; the Department of Energy, Office of the Inspector General; and the Defense Contracting Audit Agency.

The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.  The lawsuit partially resolved by the settlement is captioned United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, et al., No. 04-0280 (PLF) (D.D.C.).

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-second-chance-body-armor-president-settles-false-claims-act-case-related-defective

U.S. Attorney for Southern District of GA announces results of recent procurement fraud prosecutions

By

As part of a new emphasis on procurement fraud enforcement within the Southern District of Georgia, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia has announced the results of a series of recent procurement fraud prosecutions.

Over the past several months, the strike force’s efforts resulted in five guilty pleas and twelve civil settlements, including the following publically available actions:

  1. United States of America v. Dwayne Fulton (1:17-CR-35)
  2. United States of America v. Calvin Lawyer (1:17-CR-35)
  3. United States of America v. Anthony Roper (1:17-CR-35)
  4. United States of America v. Audra Roper (1:17-CR-35)
  5. United States ex rel. Major Contracting Services, Inc. v. Military Training Solutions, LLC and ADCO Holdings, Inc., et al. (4:16-cv-115)
  6. United States of America v. Robert Obradovich (4:18-CR-47)

These prosecutions and civil settlements with the named individuals and entities, as well as others, stemmed from a wide variety of fraudulent conduct, including bribery of public officials, illegal kickbacks, illegal arrangements between large contracting companies and certified small or 8(a) businesses acting as “front” companies, and billing for services not rendered.  Each of the individuals who has pled guilty awaits sentencing.  The total financial recovery for the United States thus far has exceeded $7.4 million.  Several of these investigations remain ongoing.

“The Southern District of Georgia is the proud home of several major military installations that serve a vital role both in our national defense and the district’s local economy,” said United States Attorney Bobby L. Christine.  “Those who do business with these installations should be on notice – ripping off the United States will not be tolerated! This office will bring to bear the full weight of our resources to hold fraudsters accountable.”

The joint strike force that led to these convictions and settlements involved agents, investigators, and auditors from the Department of Justice, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Army Criminal Investigation Command (Major Procurement Fraud Unit), Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General.  Significant and critical assistance was also provided by civilian and military personnel from the Army, Navy, and Air Force stationed at affected military installations.

“The American public expects the Department of Defense (DoD) to spend limited taxpayer funds efficiently and economically.  Bribery and other corrupt behavior by public officials and defense contractors diverts and wastes precious dollars intended to provide critical products and services for our Warfighters.  These results demonstrate the effectiveness of investigative efforts by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service to protect the integrity of all DoD programs,” said Special Agent in Charge John F. Khin, Southeast Field Office.

“These settlements stand as proof of the tenacity of our special agents,” said Frank Robey, director of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s Major Procurement Fraud Unit. “It is important for those who conspired to profit from illegal payments take responsibility for their actions. The settlements hold the defendants accountable and send a message to others that these violations will be taken seriously.”

“Our partnership with the joint procurement fraud strike force ensures fair and open competition for U.S. Government contracts which support the training and readiness of Marine Corps personnel,” said H. Andrew Goodridge, Special Agent in Charge, NCIS Carolinas Field Office.

“SBA OIG will aggressively investigate allegations of fraud involving SBA’s preferential contracting programs, to include false statements made to gain access to contracting opportunities set aside for small businesses,” said SBA OIG Eastern Region Special Agent-in-Charge Kevin Kupperbusch.  “SBA’s preferential contracting programs are intended to promote the economy and grow and develop small businesses across the nation.  I want to thank the U.S Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners for their dedication and hard work throughout these investigations.”

SBA’s General Counsel, Christopher Pilkerton said, “These successful prosecutions demonstrate the tremendous results achieved through the combined efforts of federal agencies to uncover and forcefully respond to procurement fraud.  SBA is strongly committed to identifying and aggressively pursuing instances of fraud perpetrated by those participating in SBA’s procurement programs.”

The United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Brian T. Rafferty, Shannon H. Statkus, J. Thomas Clarkson, Matthew A. Josephson, and Jonathan A. Porter.  Any claims resolved by the civil settlement agreements are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

Each of the civil settlements resolved potential liability under the False Claims Act.  Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers can be entitled to a portion of the amount recovered by the United States.  The United States Attorney’s Office also reminds contractors that businesses and individuals that self-disclose potential violations can be eligible for significantly reduced penalties.

If you have any information regarding potential procurement fraud, please contact Assistant United States Attorney J. Thomas Clarkson at (912) 201-2601.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdga/pr/southern-district-georgia-announces-results-recent-criminal-and-civil-procurement-fraud

Japanese manufacturer to pay $66 million settlement for supplying defective bullet proof vests

By

Toyobo Co. Ltd. of Japan and its American subsidiary, Toyobo U.S.A. Inc., f/k/a Toyobo America Inc. (collectively, Toyobo), have agreed to pay $66 million to resolve claims under the False Claims Act that they sold defective Zylon fiber used in bullet proof vests that the United States purchased for federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, the Justice Department has announced.

The settlement resolves allegations that between at least 2001 and 2005, Toyobo, the sole manufacturer of Zylon fiber, knew that Zylon degraded quickly in normal heat and humidity, and that this degradation rendered bullet proof vests containing Zylon unfit for use.  It was further alleged that Toyobo nonetheless actively marketed Zylon fiber for bullet proof vests, published misleading degradation data that understated the degradation problem, and when Second Chance Body Armor recalled some of its Zylon-containing vests in late 2003, started a public relations campaign designed to influence other body armor manufacturers to keep selling Zylon-containing vests.

According to the government, Toyobo’s actions delayed by several years efforts to determine the true extent of Zylon degradation.  Finally, in August 2005, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) completed a study of Zylon-containing vests and found that more than 50 percent of used vests could not stop bullets that they had been certified to stop.  Thereafter, the NIJ decertified all Zylon-containing vests.

This settlement is part of a larger investigation undertaken by the Justice Department’s Civil Division of the body armor industry’s use of Zylon in body armor.  The Civil Division previously recovered more than $66 million from 16 entities involved in the manufacture, distribution or sale of Zylon vests, including body armor manufacturers, weavers, international trading companies, and five individuals.  The settlement announced on March 15th brings the Division’s overall recoveries to over $132 million.  The United States still has lawsuits pending against Richard Davis, the former chief executive of Second Chance, and Honeywell International Inc.

The latest settlement resolves allegations filed in two lawsuits, one brought by the United States and the other filed by Aaron Westrick, Ph.D., a law enforcement officer formerly employed by Second Chance who is now a Criminal Justice professor at Lake Superior University.  Dr. Westrick’s lawsuit was filed 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 2005 in Dr. Westrick’s case.  Dr. Westrick will receive $5,775,000.

This case was handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, along with the General Services Administration, Office of the Inspector General; the Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command; the Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General for Tax Administration; the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; the Department of Energy, Office of the Inspector General; and the Defense Contracting Audit Agency.

The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.  The lawsuits resolved by the settlement are captioned United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, et al., No. 04-0280 (PLF) (D.D.C.) and United States v. Toyobo Co. Ltd., et al., No. 07-1144 (PLF) (D.D.C.).

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/japanese-fiber-manufacturer-pay-66-million-alleged-false-claims-related-defective-bullet

 

CEO gets 5+ years and must pay $2 million restitution for selling inadequately armored trucks to DoD

By

The owner and chief executive officer of an armored vehicle company was sentenced Feb. 20, 2018 to 70 months in prison for his role in orchestrating a scheme to defraud the United States by providing the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) with armored gun trucks that did not meet ballistic and blast protection requirements set out in the company’s contracts with DoD.

William Whyte, 72, of King City, Ontario, the owner and CEO of Armet Armored Vehicles of Danville, Virginia, was  also ordered to serve three years of supervised release following his prison sentence and to pay restitution in the amount of $2,019,454.36.

On Oct. 9, 2017, after a two-week trial, Whyte was found guilty of three counts of major fraud against the United States, three counts of wire fraud and three counts of criminal false claims.  Whyte was charged by an indictment in July 2012.

Evidence at trial demonstrated that Whyte executed a scheme to defraud the United States by providing armored gun trucks that were deliberately under-armored.  Armet contracted to provide armored gun trucks for use by the United States and its allies as part of the efforts to rebuild Iraq in 2005.  Despite providing armored gun trucks that did not meet contractual specifications, Whyte and his employees represented that the armored gun trucks were adequately armored in accordance with the contract, the evidence showed.  Armet was paid over $2 million over the course of the scheme, the evidence showed.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chief-executive-officer-armored-vehicle-company-sentenced-more-five-years-prison-role-scheme

Contractor agrees to pay half-million dollars to settle False Claims Act allegations relating to unallowable costs on Army contract

By

Integral Consulting Services, Inc. has agreed to pay the United States $505,838 to settle False Claims Act allegations that it submitted false claims to the government by inflating certain indirect cost rates in connection with work performed on a Department of the Army contract.

Integral Consulting Services, Inc. (ICS) is a Maryland-based company that provides IT solutions to federal government agencies and commercial organizations.  The services ICS provides range from biometric technologies to enterprise IT management and development of software applications.  In 2012, ICS was awarded an Army contract, W911W5-12-D-0002, under which it was required to provide the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center’s Biometric Intelligence Program with identity intelligence analysis support.

The civil settlement agreement resolves allegations that from on or about May 1, 2012 through June 27, 2014, ICS took costs and expenses it and its employees incurred in connection with litigation arising out of a teaming agreement with another contracting company and included the costs and expenses in the General and Administration (G&A) indirect cost pool that was spread amongst ICS’s various government contracts, including Army Contract Number W911W5-12-D-0002, and submitted to the United States government.  The inclusion of such costs had the effect of inflating the claims paid by the Army to ICS.

The civil settlement resolves United States ex rel. Amit Dalal v. Integral Consulting Services, Inc., Civ. No. GJH-14-2529 (D. Md.), a lawsuit filed by a relator under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act.  The Act permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and obtain a portion of the recovery by the United States. As part of the civil resolution, the relator will receive approximately $92,315.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/defense-contractor-agrees-pay-over-half-million-dollars-settle-false-claims-act

 

“Reverse” False Claims Act liability extended to bonding companies

By

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that bonding companies can be held liable for treble damages under the False Claims Act for issuing surety bonds to construction companies that falsely claim to be a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB).

In a novel reverse False Claims Act case, whistleblower Andrew Scollick alleged that the bonding companies “knew or should have known” the construction companies were shell companies acting as a front for larger non-veteran owned entities violating the government’s contracting requirements.

A reverse false claim action can occur when defendants knowingly make a false statement in order to avoid having to pay the government when payment is otherwise due in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G) (reverse false claims).  See United States ex. rel. Scollick v. Narula, Case No: 14-cv-01339-RCL (District Court, District of Columbia. July 31, 2017).

Under the Miller Act, government construction contractors must post bid bonds, performance bonds, and payment bonds that guarantee that the contractor will perform the work according to the terms of the contract. In this case, the contract terms required that the construction be performed by a SDVOSB entity.  Michael Kohn, of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, who represents the whistleblower, argued that given their role in providing a surety bond to the contractor the bonding companies would know whether the invoicing being billed against the contract is being performed by a SDVOSB.  The district court agreed and found that a “reverse false claims” violation occurred because the bonding company knew or should have known that the construction organization was not a SDVOSB and the act of issuing surety bonds furthered the fraud.  As a result, the bonding companies were held legally obligated to return to the government funds the bonding company knew to be paid to contractor firms fraudulently posing as SDVOSBs. Being held liable under the False Claims Act means that treble damages will be awarded for every dollar up to the amount of the bond that the government paid out under each contract.

Because of the substantial dollar amounts involved, it is not all that uncommon for contractors to falsify service-disabled veteran status. Holding bonding companies liable when they have reason to know of the fraud could have an immense impact on stamping out such contract fraud. “Holding bonding companies liable for treble damages in these types of case will have a huge impact on preventing fraud in government contracts and will help ensure these contracts go to disabled veteran-owned companies as intended,” said Kohn.

The Scollick case alleges that two of the largest surety bonding companies, Hanover Insurance Company and Hudson Insurance Company, knowingly bonded dozens of Veteran Administration construction contracts totaling more than $12.5 million with the knowledge that the bonded contractors did not qualify as service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses.

 

Source: http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=211708

Government may disqualify contractors who use standard confidentiality language with employees and subcontractors

By

Under a new FAR rule, standard language in confidentiality agreements could lead to disqualification from contracting or False Claims Act liability.

In January, the FAR Council issued a final rule regulating confidentiality agreements between prime contractors and their employees and subcontractors. The rule implements Section 743 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, Pub. L. 113-235 (Dec. 6, 2014).  As we previously reported, a proposed rule was issued in January of 2016 and a class deviation was issued by the Department of Defense late last year.  The final rule largely adopts the proposed rule’s language and applies to all solicitations and resultant contracts that are funded with fiscal year (FY) 2015 funds.  Contractor Employee Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements, 82 Fed. Reg. 4717 (Jan. 13, 2017).

In summary, the new FAR 52.203-19 bars contractors from requiring their employees or subcontractors to sign or comply with “internal confidentiality agreements or statements” that would prohibit them from reporting “waste, fraud, or abuse” on a federal contract.  FAR 52.203-19(b).  Contractors who disregard this rule are prohibited from receiving federal funds.  FAR 3.909-1(a).

Because of the broad reach and significant consequences of non-compliance, the contracting community should take notice of this new rule’s requirements.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2017/04/new-far-rule-government-may-disqualify-contractors-use-standard-confidentiality-language-employees-subcontractors/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More