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.

‘Teaming and Joint Venture Agreements’ is the subject of our special April 11 seminar

By

Interested in what it takes to form a successful teaming arrangement or joint venture?  If so, then be sure to put GTPAC’s April 11, 2019 free seminar on your to-do list!

Teaming agreements can make or break a business.  Our April 11th program — held from 9:30 am until noon — is designed to help new and experienced business owners understand the various types of teaming structures, the state and federal laws that impact teaming relationships, and the most common teaming agreement clauses that create risk (or shift rewards) for the parties.

Our presenters include three very experienced attorneys who counsel government contractors — including Mary Donne Peters, a former federal prosecutor; Amy C. M. Burns, a former senior attorney at the Georgia Attorney General’s office; and Mike Gorby, an experienced litigator, author and lecturer.

Don’t wait to sign-up for our Teaming and Joint Venture Agreements training seminar!   For more details and to register, visit: https://gtpac.ecenterdirect.com/events/8672.  Space is limited.

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

Major changes finalized in DoD mentor-protégé program

By

The author of this article is Steve Koprince. He is managing partner with Koprince Law LLC, specializing in government contracting issues, and is the author of a book entitled “The Small-Business Guide to Government Contracts.”

The Defense Department (DoD) has issued a final rule making major changes in the DoD “Pilot” Mentor-Protégé Program.  The rule took effect on March 23, 2018.

Among the major changes, DoD has both expanded and contracted the universe of potential protégés – and has included a mandatory certification that seems to completely misunderstand the SBA’s joint venture rules and processes.

Here Steve Koprine’s take on the good, the bad, and the ugly from the final rule: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/dod-mentor-protege-program-major-changes-finalized/

 

VA’s SDVOSB JV verification assistance brief is wrong

By

The VA’s Verification Assistance Brief for SDVOSB and VOSB joint ventures flat-out misstates the law regarding the manner in which joint venture profits must be split.

SDVOSBs and VOSBs often rely on Verification Assistance Briefs to guide them through the CVE verification process, and CVE analysts sometimes use Verification Assistance Briefs, too.  Which begs the question: how many CVE-verified joint ventures are legally invalid?

The VAAR provides that a joint venture can be eligible for a VA SDVOSB or VOSB set-aside contract so long as the joint venture (among other things) adopts a joint venture agreement meeting the requirements of the SBA’s SDVOSB regulations.  So far, so good–joint ventures are complex enough; the last thing we need is a separate, VA-specific list of SDVOSB joint venture requirements.

Effective August 24, 2016, the SBA overhauled its requirements for SDVOSB joint ventures.  The SBA moved the regulations from 13 C.F.R. 125.15 to 13 C.F.R. 125.18, and made many substantive changes and additions.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/the-vas-sdvosb-jv-verification-assistance-brief-is-wrong/

Missing JV agreement sinks offeror’s proposal

By

A small business joint venture’s proposal was excluded from the competition because the joint venture failed to submit a signed copy of its joint venture agreement, as required by the solicitation.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the procuring agency acted properly in excluding the joint venture’s proposal, even though the joint venture’s price was more than $300,000 lower than the lowest-priced awardee’s.

The GAO’s decision in CJW Desbuild JV, LLC, B-414219 (Mar. 17, 2017) involved a NAVFAC solicitation for construction services.  The solicitation was issued as a small business set-aside, and contemplated the award of up to six IDIQ contracts.

The solicitation called for NAVFAC to make award on a best value basis, taking into account both price and non-price factors. The three non-price factors were construction experience, safety, and past performance.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/uncategorized/missing-jv-agreement-sinks-offerors-proposal/

SBA corrects profit-splitting flaw in new joint venture regulations

By

The SBA has corrected a flaw in the profit-splitting provisions of its new joint venture regulations.

SBA logo smallUnder the corrected regulations, which became effective on December 27, all of the SBA’s joint venture regulations – those for small businesses, SDVOSBs, HUBZones, 8(a)s, and WOSBs – will require that each joint venturer receive profits commensurate with the work it performs.  The SBA’s revisions clear up an inconsistency between the 8(a) joint venture regulations and the regulations for the SBA’s other set-aside programs, and eliminates a potential disincentive for joint venturers to avail themselves of the protections of a formal legal entity such as a limited liability company.

Effective August 2016, the SBA overhauled its joint venture regulations.  Among the major changes, the SBA eliminated so-called “populated” joint ventures and made numerous additions and revisions to the regulations governing mentor-protege joint ventures, SDVOSB joint ventures, and joint ventures for other set-aside contracts.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/sba-corrects-profit-splitting-flaw-in-new-joint-venture-regulations/

SBA revises 8(a) joint venture regulation – but confusion remains

By

Stating that populated joint ventures have now been eliminated, the SBA has revised its 8(a) joint venture regulations to reflect that change.

koprince-book
The author of this article, Steven J. Koprince, is also the author of the book entitled “The Small-Business Guide to Government Contracts.”

In a technical correction published Oct. 19th in the Federal Register, the SBA flatly states that an earlier major rulemaking eliminated populated joint venture, and tweaks the profit-sharing piece of its 8(a) joint venture regulation to remove an outdated reference to populated joint ventures.  But even following this technical correction, there are three important points of potential confusion that remain (at least in my mind) regarding the SBA’s new joint venture regulations.

If you’re a SmallGovCon reader, you know that the Small Business Administration (SBA) made some major adjustments to its rules regarding joint ventures earlier this year.  Among those changes, the SBA amended the definition of a joint venture to state that, among other things, a joint venture “may be in the form of a formal or informal partnership or exist as a separate legal entity.”  If the joint venture is a separate legal entity, it “may not be populated with individuals intended to perform contracts,” although the joint venture may still be populated with one or more administrative personnel.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/8a-program/sba-revises-8a-jv-regulation-but-confusion-remains/

Major changes proposed to DoD Mentor-Protege Program

By

dod-mentor-protege-programThe Department of Defense is proposing a major overhaul of the regulations governing its “pilot” mentor-protege program for small businesses.

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2016, makes a number of important changes, including adding new eligibility criteria, placing limits on the amount of time a protege can participate in the program, adding new required elements to mentor-protege agreements, and much more.

The DoD’s proposed rule responds to the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which called for the DoD to amend its mentor-protege program.  The proposed rule makes a number of important changes.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/dod-mentor-protege-program-major-changes-proposed/

Unapproved addendum sinks 8(a) joint venture’s bid

By

SBA sealAn 8(a) joint venture failed to obtain SBA’s approval of an addendum to its joint venture agreement — and the lack of SBA approval cost the joint venture an 8(a) contract.

In Alutiiq-Banner Joint Venture, B-412952 et al. (July 15, 2016), GAO sustained a protest challenging an 8(a) joint venture’s eligibility for award where that joint venture had not previously sought (or received) SBA’s approval for an addendum to its joint venture agreement.

GAO-GovernmentAccountabilityOffice-SealAt the big picture level, SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program Regulations contain strict requirements that an 8(a) entity must satisfy before joint venturing with another entity for an 8(a) contract. For instance, the 8(a) joint venture must have a detailed joint venture agreement that, among other things, sets forth the specific purpose of the joint venture (usually relating to the performance of a specific solicitation). Where the joint venture seeks to modify its joint venture agreement (even to allow for the performance of another 8(a) contract), the Regulations require prior approval of any such amendment or addendum by the SBA. 13 C.F.R. § 124.513(e).

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/unapproved-addendum-sinks-8a-joint-ventures-bid/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More