Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Partner of military contractor sentenced to prison for bribery scheme related to contracts in support of Iraq war

By

A former business partner of a U.S. military contractor was sentenced last week to 18 months in prison for his role in a years-long scheme to bribe U.S. Army contracting officials stationed at a U.S. military base in Kuwait during the Iraq War.

Finbar Charles, a citizen of Saint Lucia most recently residing in Baguio City, Philippines, was sentenced by Chief U.S. District Judge Karon O. Bowdre of the Northern District of Alabama.  Chief Judge Bowdre also ordered Charles to forfeit $228,558 in illicit gains.  Charles pleaded guilty in July 2018 to one count of bribery of a federal official.

According to admissions made in connection with his guilty plea, Charles was a business partner of a former U.S. military contractor, Terry Hall.  As Hall’s business partner, Charles admitted that he facilitated Hall and others in providing millions of dollars in bribes in approximately 2005 to 2007 to various U.S. Army officials in exchange for preferential treatment for Hall’s companies in connection with Department of Defense (DoD) contracts to deliver bottled water and construct security fencing to support U.S. troops stationed in Kuwait and Iraq.

As part of his role in this criminal conspiracy, Charles admitted that he managed bank accounts in Kuwait and the Philippines that he used to receive DoD payments and transfer illegal bribes to various U.S. Army contracting officials, including Majors Eddie Pressley, James Momon, and Chris Murray.  All of those individuals, as well as at least 10 other co-conspirators, have pleaded guilty or been convicted of crimes relating to this scheme.  Charles admitted that he falsified loan and consulting agreements to conceal the true nature of the bribe payments to the Army officers, and that he personally received over $228,000 in illicit gains as a result of his participation.

This case was investigated by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, the FBI, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs provided substantial assistance in this matter.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-business-partner-us-military-contractor-sentenced-prison-bribery-scheme-related

Government contractors found guilty in $11 million veteran set-aside fraud scheme

By

A federal jury has convicted Andrew Otero and his company, A&D General Contracting, Inc. (A&D), on charges that they fraudulently obtained $11 million in federal contracts specifically set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.  The jury’s decision was rendered on Nov. 21, 2018.

The evidence demonstrated that Otero had no military experience.  Yet Otero and veteran Roger Ramsey participated in a conspiracy to defraud the government by forming a joint venture (JV) – and falsely representing that Ramsey’s firm and the JV qualified as service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB).  Based on the false claim to SDVOSB eligibility, the conspirators fraudulently obtained approximately $11 million in federal government construction contracts or task orders with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE).

As proven at trial, the fraudulent conspiracy involved set-aside contracts that could only be bid upon by legitimate service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses – a designation that did not apply to Otero or A&D.  To appear qualified, Otero and Ramsey initially executed an agreement to create the JV, which stated that Ramsey’s company would be the managing venturer, employ a project manager for each of the set-aside contracts, and receive the majority of the JV’s profits.

However, as proved at trial, six months later, Otero and Ramsey signed a secret side agreement that made clear the JV was ineligible under the SDVOSB program. For example, the side agreement said the parties created the JV so that A&D could simply use the disabled veteran status of Ramsey’s firm to bid on contracts.  The side agreement also stated that A&D – not Ramsey – would run the construction jobs.  They also agreed that A&D would keep 98 percent of every payment.

In addition to the secret side agreement, the evidence demonstrated several ways in which the JV did not operate as a legitimate SDVOSB, but was essentially controlled by Otero and A&D.  For example, although Ramsey (a service-disabled veteran) nominally served as president of his firm and the JV, he actually worked full-time for a telecommunications company.  Otero and A&D, not Ramsey, controlled the day-to-day management, daily operation and long-term decision making of the JV. Among other things, Otero and A&D appointed an A&D employee as the project manager for every contract and task order.

“Our nation strives to repay the debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans by setting aside some government contracts for veterans with service-related disabilities,” said United States Attorney Adam Braverman.  “These unscrupulous contractors abused this program through a cynical and illegal ‘rent-a-vet’ scheme.  They are now being held fully accountable for robbing truly deserving vets of important economic opportunities.”

The defendants are also facing civil charges consisting of alleged violations of the false claims act based on the similar misconduct.  The defendants have been ordered to appear in U.S. District Court for sentencing on February 19, 2019.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/government-contractors-found-guilty-11-million-veteran-set-aside-fraud-scheme

Contractor forfeits $1.7 million in assets, pleads guilty to delivery of cheap versions of products

By

Jim A. Meron, owner of California-based WOW Imaging Products LLC and Time Enterprises LLC, has pled guilty to wire fraud related to a procurement fraud scheme involving the General Service Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule program and a Department of Defense (DoD) electronic ordering system.

According to court documents, between May 2011 and July 2017, Meron used his two office supply businesses to defraud federal government agencies out of as much as $3.5 million — involving thousands of transactions — by substituting and delivering cheaper, generic versions of expensive, name-brand products his customers ordered, and pocketing the price difference. As part of his plea, Meron agreed to forfeit more than $1.7 million in assets seized during the investigation of his crimes.

Meron’s companies contracted to sell office supplies to federal agencies through two web-based government sales portals, GSA Advantage and DoD eMall.  After Meron received payments for the premium products his customers ordered, he obtained compatible products from his suppliers that cost him a fraction of what his customer paid for the brand-name products they ordered.  Meron then substituted and delivered those cheaper products for the more expensive products his customers ordered, and retained the difference in cost.  Over time, Meron extended his substitution scheme to nearly all orders for those name-brand products, and never intended to deliver what his customers ordered.

This case is the product of an investigation by GSA’s Office of Inspector General and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

Meron is scheduled to be sentenced on February 4, 2019.  Meron faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count of conviction. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/granite-bay-man-pleads-guilty-multi-million-dollar-product-substitution-fraud-federal

Feds sue Navy contractor for environmental fraud

By

The U.S. government will prosecute three whistleblower complaints against a U.S. Navy contractor accused of widespread fraud in the $1 billion cleanup of a radiation-contaminated shipyard and site of a major redevelopment project.

Seven whistleblowers have accused the contractor Tetra Tech of falsifying soil tests that were supposed to verify the decontamination of a 400-acre site where more than 10,000 homes are slated to be built in one of the largest redevelopment projects in San Francisco history.

“It was of critical importance to the United States Navy, and the public, that Tetra Tech perform accurately and fully the radiological testing and remediation at the Hunters Point site for which it was hired,” Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt said in a statement on Oct. 26th.  “The Department of Justice will vigorously pursue action against those who obtain federal funds based on promises they knowingly fail to keep.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-sue-navy-contractor-for-environmental-fraud/

You’d better ‘feed’ SAM regularly — especially before you submit a bid

By

Effective October 26, 2018, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires businesses who are pursuing federal contracts to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to their submission of a bid, proposal, or quote to a federal agency.

Think of this as the need to “feed” information about your company into the SAM database, including updates to that information, on a regular basis.

There are only a few exceptions to this new policy (exceptions may be found at FAR 4.1102).

In the context of federal contracting, SAM is essentially the federal government’s vendor database.  By registering in SAM, businesses indicate their compliance and agreement with the federal government’s standard “representations and certifications” requirements.  Updating your SAM record must be done at least annually for a vendor to maintain “active” status is SAM.

The new rule clarifies what had been ambiguity as to when vendors must be registered in SAM in order to be eligible to receive contract awards.  (See details in our earlier article on this subject here.)  With the FAR change, it’s now clear that registration must be accomplished before a vendor submits a response to an Invitation for Bid (IFB), a Request for Proposal (RFP), or a Request for a Quotation (RFQ).

If you need help with your company’s SAM registration, feel free to contact a Procurement Counselor with the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC).  All of our contact information is listed by location at: https://gtpac.org/team-directory.

If you are located outside of the state of Georgia, you can find the procurement technical assistance center (PTAC) nearest you at: http://www.aptac-us.org/contracting-assistance.

Remember: There is never a fee to register in SAM as a government contractor. PTACs are available to provide you with no-cost help to get you through the process.

 

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

Fort Stewart contractor that posed as small business forfeits $7.8 million

By

A company that rents tents and other outdoor structures for events agreed to pay the government $7.8 million to settle charges that it wrongly won Defense Department set-aside contracts reserved for small businesses.

Arena Americas, which does business from multiple locations as Arena Event Services, settled after a False Claims Act investigation conducted by the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the inspector general of the Small Business Administration.

The agreement details how Arena Americas worked with Military Training Solutions LLC to obtain small business defense contracts that were represented as being performed by Military Training Solutions, but were actually performed by Arena Americas.

“As a result of this scheme, which was perpetuated at Fort Stewart, Ga., and at other military installations across the United States, millions of dollars in defense contracts wrongfully were awarded to Arena Americas instead of legitimate small businesses,” said Bobby Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, in a statement. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office will not tolerate any attempts to illegally exploit the system for a company’s personal advantage” in obtaining the set-asides that Congress intended as a tool to help grow small businesses.

Keep reading this article at: https://m.govexec.com/contracting/2018/10/defense-contractor-who-posed-small-business-forfeits-78-million/151951

See statement by U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia at: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdga/pr/defense-contractor-agrees-pay-united-states-78-million-settle-false-claims-act

How contractor fraud is reported shouldn’t affect how it gets investigated

By

While the vast majority of federal contractors are dedicated to their craft and their country, a very few wrongdoers occasionally cast a shadow on the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, the way that the government resolves fraud allegations is often dictated not by the egregiousness of the fraud but rather by how the government learns of suspected wrongdoing.

Given this inconsistency, we suggest a more uniform approach to addressing whistleblower allegations.

As many defense contractors have painfully learned over the years, the world of federal procurement regulations is complicated, evolving, and perilous. Even technical violations of procurement regulations can bring stiff consequences. And, more and more, employees at federal contractors are speaking up when they see wrongdoing. We applaud these employees for taking their job responsibilities seriously. And, when an employee sees wrongdoing, he or she should report it.

The traditional way to blow the whistle is to report internally up the chain and—if that does not work—the whistleblower could report suspected wrongdoing to federal contracting officers or to Defense Department hotline numbers.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/contracting/2018/10/how-contractor-fraud-reported-shouldnt-affect-how-it-gets-investigated/151771

Effective Oct. 26, you must be registered in SAM before you submit a federal bid, proposal or quote

By

It’s official: If you intend to pursue a federal contract, your business must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) before you submit a bid, proposal, or quotation.  The new rule that makes this clear goes into effect on October 26, 2018.

Any wiggle room that may have existed in the past has been eliminated.  SAM registration is now imperative if you are interested in federal contracting.

It used to be that SAM registration was required before a contract could be awarded. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at Subpart 4.1102(a) made that clear.  But that requirement was always a bit ambiguous since another provision of the FAR (Subpart 52.204-8(d)) said that bidders and proponents had to complete the representations and certifications in SAM as a condition of making their offer.  As a matter of practical interpretation, most federal contracting officers simply made sure that an offeror’s SAM registration was complete before awarding the offeror a contract.

That latitude goes away on October 26, 2018.  On that date, FAR Subpart 4.1102 is officially amended to require all entities (i.e., vendors, including joint ventures) to be registered in SAM at the time they submit an offer (a bid or proposal) or submit a quotation to a federal agency.  In essence, vendors who are not registered in SAM are ineligible to submit offers or quotes – effective October 26, 2018.

Keep in mind that the SAM registration process can take time to complete.  If you’re planning to compete for a federal contract in the future, you should complete your SAM registration as far in advance as possible.  And, if you are already registered in SAM, remember that your SAM registration must be renewed at least annually – and renewed whenever any part of your registration needs to be updated.

If you need help with your company’s SAM registration, feel free to contact a Procurement Counselor with the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC).  All of our contact information is listed by location at: https://gtpac.org/team-directory.

If you are located outside of the state of Georgia, you can find the procurement technical assistance center (PTAC) nearest you at: http://www.aptac-us.org/contracting-assistance.

Remember: There is never a fee to register in SAM as a government contractor. PTACs are available with no-cost help to get you through the process.

SAM is located at: https://sam.gov.  But before beginning the SAM registration process, you must first take care of the following:

  1. Obtain a DUNS Number by registering your Legal Business Name and Physical Address with Dun & Bradstreet (D&B).  If you don’t already have a DUNS Number, you can request a DUNS Number for FREE from D&B at: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform
  2. Make sure you have a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) associated with the Legal Business Name registered with D&B.  To obtain information from the IRS on how to obtain a TIN, visit: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayer-identification-numbers-tin
  3. Have your bank’s routing number handy, including your bank account number and your bank account type (i.e., checking or savings).  You’ll need this information to set up Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) in SAM.  The federal government makes virtually all contract payments via EFT.
  4. The first time you log in to SAM.gov, you’ll be asked to create a login.gov user account (if you don’t already have one). Going forward, you will use your login.gov username and password every time you log in to SAM.gov. Existing SAM.gov usernames and passwords no longer work.

Suspicious contract activity proliferates — watch out!

By

The Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) continues to become aware of apparent contracting scams designed to trick unsuspecting vendors to deliver products for which they will receive no payment.

(You can view a compendium of articles about previously-identified scams at: https://gtpac.org/?s=scam.)

The latest example that’s come to our attention involves an email sent to vendors asking for a quote on some computer equipment.  The email is supposedly from a contracting representative with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Vendors are asked to quote on name-brand portable hard drives and two brands of laptop computers.  The solicitation document appears to be a version of the federal Standard Form 1449.  But there are several suspicious elements associated with the solicitation:

  • While the email purportedly is from the SEC’s headquarters, the document indicates that the SEC office is in Germany.
  • Place of delivery is not listed.
  • The solicitation is pre-signed by the contracting officer.
  • The solicitation number is not consistent with standard numbering.
  • The phone number provided could be a cell phone number.

We have seen suspicious documents like this before.  What can result is that a vendor will respond with pricing.  Then, the scam artist will respond by saying that the quote has been accepted and directing that the products be shipped to a particular address.  After that, all communication ceases.  The vendor is cheated out of products (plus the cost of shipping), and receives no payment.

Be alert to scams like this.  If you receive something that looks suspicious, call it to our attention.  We’ll help you figure out what to do.

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More