Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Navy and Marine Corps make drones a top priority

By

The Navy and Marine Corps are making a serious effort to more heavily incorporate drones into the way the services do business.

The services released an Unmanned Campaign Plan last week that will advance manned-unmanned teaming in naval and joint missions and build a digital infrastructure that integrates drones at speed and scale.

“It is imperative that we employ new and different strategies to win the future fight,” the authors of the plan wrote.  “Unmanned concepts allow us to rewrite the narrative on traditional warfare.  Through a capabilities-based approach, we can build a future where unmanned systems are at the front lines of our competitive advantage.”

Continue reading at:  Federal News Network

NAVFAC SE hosting virtual industry engagement day event March 31st

By

NAVFAC Southeast Virtual Industry Engagement Day 2021

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) Southeast is hosting a Virtual Industry Engagement Day, on March 31, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT.

The Industry Engagement Day will provide a venue for NAVFAC Southeast to discuss its mission, goals, and contracting opportunities with industry representatives.

NAVFAC Southeast provides engineering support to the Warfighter through major and minor construction, A/E design, environmental, public works functions, and facility support services (FSC BOS).

Our Area of Operations (AOR) extends from the far reaches of Texas, north to Nebraska and Kansas, through Tennessee, east to South Carolina, down through the Southeast to Naval Station (NS) Guantanamo Bay, and provides support to the rest of the Caribbean through Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).

The intent of this engagement is to specifically address the following:

  • COMMUNICATE upcoming contracting opportunities
  • Establish a semi-annual engagement between NAVFAC Southeast and industry to directly AFFECT and IMPROVE contracting of construction, repair, and services at all levels
  • Find a way to drive to FASTER methods of pre-award execution (i.e. – innovative approaches to acquisition process and tools)
  • Improve EXECUTION speed by relying more on small business at ‘arms reach/quicker response’ at our 20 field offices across our AOR
  • Facilitate ENGAGEMENT between small business and large business (Mentor/Protégé) to improve outcomes and competition

Who Should Attend:

Any contractors interested in contracting and subcontracting opportunities with NAVFAC Southeast.  Industry representatives interested in attending this event should contact Mr. John Bazylewicz via email at:

NAVFAC_SE_SMALL_BUSINESS@navy.mil

with “NAVFAC SE Industry Day 2021” in the subject line.

No later than close of business March 24.

Firms shall provide Mr. Bazylewicz a list including the company name, attendee names, email addresses, and phone numbers.  This information will be shared with all attendees after the event.  Please indicate if you do not want your information shared.  For additional information, please visit the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Southeast Virtual Day landing page at:

https://www.navfac.navy.mil/navfac_worldwide/atlantic/fecs/southeast/about_us/cntr_partner/virtual_industry_engagement_day.html

For more information, you can also visit:  https://beta.sam.gov/opp/6c7bc3fb6c594112a8491455cadb4a27/view

Concrete contractor agrees to settle false claims act allegations for $3.9 million

By

Colas Djibouti, a contractor for the Department of the Navy at Camp Lemonnier and Chabelley Airfield, and the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti, admitted today that it faked testing results and submitted a series of false documents and false claims to the United States as part of a scheme to defraud the United States in the sale of substandard concrete used to construct U.S. Navy airfields in Djibouti.

Colas Djibouti, a French limited liability company, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Colas SA, a French civil engineering company.  According to documents filed in court, as part of its contracts with the Department of the Navy, Colas Djibouti was required to certify that it supplied concrete with specific composition and characteristics.  Notwithstanding these obligations, Colas Djibouti created fictitious testing results, made fraudulent representations regarding the concrete’s composition and characteristics, and knowingly provided concrete to the United States that did not comply with the specifications.

Continue reading at:  U.S. Department of Justice

The Navy gets tough on DFARS cybersecurity compliance

By

Last year we told you about a 2018 Navy memo, known as the Geurts Memo, which required defense contractors to implement certain controls for NIST SP 800-171, some of them going beyond 171 requirements.  If you didn’t see our write-up, it can be found here: “Still Lagging on DFARS? The Navy Has A Memo For You”.

The Navy has now gone several steps beyond that 2018 memo and is requiring their contracting officers to implement a strict regime when it comes to their contractors’ compliance with NIST SP 800-171 and the Guerts Memo.

Continue reading at:  Sera-Brynn

Navy tightens cybersecurity requirements

By

Almost a year after Assistant Secretary of the Navy James Geurts issued his September 28, 2018 memorandum (Geurts Memo) imposing enhanced security controls on “critical” Navy programs, the Navy has issued an update to the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulations Supplement (NMCARS) to implement those changes more formally across the Navy.  Pursuant to this update, a new Annex 16 in the NMCARS provides Statement of Work (SOW) language that must be added into Navy solicitations and contracts where the Navy has determined “the risk to a critical program and/or technology warrants its inclusion.”  In addition to the technical requirements reflected in the Geurts Memo, the Navy has added Subpart 5204.73 to the NMCARS that, among other things, instructs Contracting Officers (COs) to seek equitable reductions or consider reducing or suspending progress payments for contractor non-compliance with the Annex 16 and DFARS 252.204-7012 (DFARS clause) requirements.

Continue reading at:  Covington

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.

$3.6 million settlement resolves procurement fraud investigation involving 8(a) firm

By

VMJ Construction, LLC (VMJ) and its owner, Colorado resident Michael T. Vigil, as well as Maryland-based Vigil Contracting, Inc. (Vigil Contracting) and its operations manager, John J. Vigil, have agreed to pay the United States $3.6 million to resolve allegations that they defrauded the Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a) Business Development Program.

The SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program for economically and socially disadvantaged small businesses serves dual roles.

  • First, the program helps socially and economically disadvantaged small business owners gain access to valuable federal contracts, thereby promoting economic and social mobility.
  • Second, the program saves taxpayers money by spurring a competitive marketplace.  By promoting the development of small businesses, the 8(a) Program helps prevent the formation of monopolies that would stifle innovation and restrict consumers’ ability to negotiate lower prices.

It is important that the 8(a) Program is reserved only for companies that actually meet the program’s criteria because misuse of the program deprives legitimate 8(a) Program participants of valuable economic opportunities and undermines the integrity of the program.

There are several rules that businesses in the 8(a) program must abide by.

  • The socially and economically disadvantaged owner of the business must manage the day-to-day operations of the company and have responsibility for the long-term decision-making for the company.
  • 8(a) Program applicants must also truthfully disclose any affiliation with other businesses so that SBA may accurately assess whether the applicant meets the definition of a small business, and whether the applicant shows potential for success and the ability to perform the requisite percentage of the contracts secured through the Program.
  • Businesses also cannot remain in the 8(a) Program indefinitely; after nine years, they graduate from the program and are no longer eligible to bid on 8(a) contracts.

VMJ was accepted into the 8(a) Program in 2011.  Michael T. Vigil, who is Hispanic, was the 91% owner of VMJ, and was the socially and economically disadvantaged individual upon which VMJ based its application to the 8(a) program.  John J. Vigil was a 9% owner of VMJ.  John J. Vigil was also the operations manager of Vigil Contracting.  Vigil Contracting is a 2011 graduate of the 8(a) Program.  Since 2011, Vigil Contracting has not been eligible to bid for contracts reserved for 8(a) program participants.

The United States contends that VMJ made false statements to the SBA regarding its eligibility to participate in the 8(a) program.  Specifically, VMJ relied almost exclusively upon Vigil Contracting to bid on and complete the work awarded to VMJ under the 8(a) program.  VMJ used Vigil Contracting’s bonding, office space, employees, contractors, software, computers, and vehicles.  Vigil Contracting employees and contractors, including John J. Vigil, made the high-level business decisions of VMJ and managed the day-to-day operations of VMJ.   Michael T. Vigil did not control VMJ, did not set the long-term policy, nor manage the day-to-day management of the business.  VMJ knowingly misrepresented these facts to SBA, in both VMJ’s initial application to participate in the 8(a) program and in an annual update to SBA.  As a result of the deception, the Army, the Navy, and the Department of Agriculture awarded VMJ several federal government contracts set aside for 8(a) program participants.

“The United States uses these set-aside contracts for a clear reason — to help small businesses owned by economically and socially disadvantaged individuals.  This program continues the promise of the American Dream by helping new small businesses get on their feet, and with more businesses on their feet, our markets are healthier and more competitive,” said U.S. Attorney Jason Dunn. “When companies lie about their eligibility to get these contracts, they prevent other deserving small businesses from getting the assistance that Congress intended.”

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/36-million-settlement-resolves-procurement-fraud-investigation-against-colorado-and

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/

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

Chinese government hackers steal massive amounts of data from Navy contractor computers

By

Chinese government hackers have stolen large swaths of highly sensitive data on undersea warfare from a Navy contractor’s computers, The Washington Post reports.

The stolen information includes secret plans to develop a supersonic anti-ship missile to be used by submarines by 2020, American officials told the Post.

The incidents took place in January and February, but officials did not disclose the contractor that was targeted, the newspaper reported Friday.

Although the information was highly sensitive, it was housed on the contractor’s unclassified network, according to the Post.

“Per federal regulations, there are measures in place that require companies to notify the government when a ‘cyber incident’ has occurred that has actual or potential adverse effects on their networks that contain controlled unclassified information,” Navy Lt. Marycate Walsh said in a statement. “It would be inappropriate to discuss further details at this time.”

Keep reading this article at: http://wtkr.com/2018/06/08/wapo-chinese-government-hackers-steal-massive-amounts-of-data-from-navy-contractor-computers/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More