Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

SBA to host surety bond workshop June 25th

By

On Thursday, June 25, 2019, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and the National Association of Surety Bond Producers (“NASBP”) will be holding a half-day surety bond workshop.  Topics covered will include:

  • Contract Bonding and Insurance
  • Banking and Finance
  • Risk Management and Legal Concerns
  • Federal Assistance Programs
  • Local Procurement Opportunities
  • Business Development Resources

This event will be held at the Cleveland L. Dennard Conference Center, Atlanta Technical College, 1560 Metropolitan Parkway, SW from 8 a.m. – 1 p.m. ET.

Here is the official SBA event flyer:  SBA Surety Bond Workshop Flyer

Registration is required, because seats are limited:

Click Here To Register or go to www.sba.gov/ga

New OHA decision regarding class waivers of the non-manufacturer rule creates uncertainty

By

Those familiar with Federal procurements know the general rule: If you submit a proposal against a solicitation despite disagreeing with one of its provisions, you usually waive the right to challenge that provision in the future.  That rule applies to bid protests at both the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and the Court of Federal Claims.  In Size Appeal of Cypher Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Crown Point Systems, SBA No. SIZ-5986 (2019), the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) recently showed that the general rule does not necessarily apply to SBA size protests.

Continue reading the article at: Government Contracts Insights

Key takeaways from the SBA’s revised policy directives for the SBIR and STTR programs

By

The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has statutory authority to establish federal Government-wide policies to implement the Small Business Innovation Research (“SBIR”) and Small Business Technology Transfer (“STTR”) programs.  SBA recently issued a significantly revised final SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, which is effective May 2, 2019.  See 84 FR 12794.  Below we highlight the major changes implemented in the revised policy directive.

Overview of the SBIR and STTR Programs

The statutory purpose of the SBIR program is to strengthen the role of small businesses in federally funded research and development.  In particular, the aims of the program include: stimulating technological innovation; fostering and encouraging the participation of small businesses, especially small disadvantaged and women-owned businesses, in federal research; and increasing the commercialization of innovations derived from federal research and development, thereby increasing competition, productivity, and economic growth in the U.S. economy.

The STTR program shares these goals, yet also aims to stimulate partnerships between small businesses and research institutions with the purpose of commercializing innovative technologies, including those emerging from colleges and universities.

Both programs use a three-phased approach to projects, with an initial Phase I feasibility effort, a Phase II continuation of study, and a Phase III transition to commercialization efforts.  Not all projects progress through all three phases, although that is the ultimate objective.

Each federal agency with an annual R&D budget of over $100 million must set aside some of its research dollars for SBIR and STTR program awards.

Continue reading the article at: Government Contracts Insights

SBA and Atlanta MBDA to host 8(a) training event May 13th

By

The SBA Georgia District Office and Atlanta MBDA Business and Advanced Manufacturing Centers will be jointly hosting a half-day event related to the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program.  The purpose of the event is to foster new 8(a) applicants and to provide instruction to current 8(a) participants on how to maximize the impact of their 8(a) program experience.  The event will also provide training on how 8(a) participants can prepare for transitioning out of the program successfully at the end of their program term.

Topics Include:

  • The Federal Contracting Market and the 8(a) Program
  • 8(a) Program Best Practices
  • 8(a) Program Eligibility and Application Process
  • Effective Marketing to Federal Agencies
  • Capacity Building Tools / Resources for Current 8(a) Participants

There is no fee to attend.  But seats are limited, so registration is required.

Date:  Monday, May 13, 2019

Time:  9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ET

Location:  Georgia Tech Research Institute Conference Center, 250 14th Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30318

Register here:  https://www.sba.gov/event/1640787

GTPAC to host Atlanta government contracting day on May 21st

By

Are you interested in doing business with the government?  Are you already doing business with the government?  If so, please join us as we celebrate government contracting on May 21, 2019, at the Global Learning Center, 84 5th Street NW, Atlanta GA.  GTPAC Counselors will introduce themselves and will provide special presentations on emerging government contracting issues.  GTPAC Counselors will also take questions from the audience related to government contracting.  GTPAC and its resource partners will also provide information about their services and programs.  Contractors will also have an opportunity to network and meet with other vendors and attendees!

Date:  5/21/2019

Time:  9:00 AM to 12:00 PM (EDT)

Location:  Global Learning Center, 84 5th Street NW, Atlanta GA

Presenters:  To be determined.

Admission is free, but pre-registration is required as seating is limited.

Registration:  Go to https://gtpac.ecenterdirect.com/events/8687 and click “Sign Up”

If you have any questions, reach out to Andrew Smith at andrew.smith@innovate.gatech.edu 

5 things you should know about the ‘nonmanufacturer rule’

By

To qualify as a small business under most set-aside or sole source contracts seeking manufactured products or supplies, SBA’s regulations require an offeror to be the item’s manufacturer or, alternatively, comply with the nonmanufacturer rule.

In a prior post, we discussed 5 Things You Should Know about being the item’s manufacturer; in this post, we’ll discuss qualifying under the nonmanufacturer rule.

1. Do I need to qualify under the nonmanufacturer rule?

That depends on the type of procurement you’re bidding on. Again, the nonmanufacturer rule comes into play for solicitations seeking manufactured items or supplies, and only if the offeror doesn’t qualify as the manufacturer itself.

Keep in mind, too, that acquisitions set-aside for small businesses under the simplified acquisition threshold are not subject to the nonmanufacturer rule. This exemption doesn’t apply, however, to any other socio-economic designation—for example, if it’s an SDVOSB set-aside under the simplified acquisition threshold, the offeror will have to either be the item’s manufacturer or qualify under the nonmanufacturer rule.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/five-things/nonmanufacturer-rule/

Former Army colonel pleads guilty to role in Fort Gordon fraud, kickback scheme

By

A former active-duty U.S. Army colonel has pled guilty to accepting bribes in return for helping steer military contracts to a business fraudulently claiming status as a small business.

Anthony R. Williams of Vienna, VA, pled guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Bribery and felony conflict of interest in U.S. District Court, said Bobby L. Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia.

Williams faces a sentence of up to five years in prison, and has agreed to forfeit more than $1.2 million in proceeds derived from the scheme.

According to court documents and evidence entered during court proceedings, Williams, while serving as a colonel in the U.S. Army, accepted bribes to steer federal procurement contracts to the CREC Group, a company owned by Calvin Devear Lawyer, a retired U.S. Army colonel. The CREC Group had received Small Business Administration (SBA) status as a small, disadvantaged business based on false representations from Lawyer and from Dwayne Oswald Fulton, then an employee of a defense contractor.

Lawyer previously pled guilty in the case and is serving a 60-month prison sentence, while co-conspirator, Anthony Roper, a former active duty U.S. Army colonel at Fort Gordon, also pled guilty and is serving a 60-month sentence.

The cases were investigated by the United States Army Criminal Investigations Division (CID), the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General, and the United States Attorney’s Office.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdga/pr/former-army-colonel-pleads-guilty-role-fort-gordon-fraud-kickback-scheme

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.

Small Business Mentor-Protege Program fuels cooperation

By

Small businesses are underutilizing a mentor-protégé program that streamlines their access to the federal marketplace, say government officials. Known as the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program, or ASMPP, the effort provides small businesses with a new avenue into federal contracting.

Developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the ASMPP fits a niche and fills a need that had been a gap for some time, said Lori Gillen, ASMPP director at the SBA. Sandi Clifford, ASMPP deputy director, explained at an AFCEA Small Business Committee presentation that it was modeled and expands on the SBA’s 8(a) mentor-protégé program by opening doors for non-8(a) firms under the umbrella of a single governmentwide program for all small businesses. It does not involve the Defense Department, which has its own mentor-protégé program, nor the Federal Aviation Administration, as neither comes under the purview of the Small Business Act.

“It helps streamline access for small firms to get into the federal marketplace; it helps enhance business capabilities and growth potential through mentoring with large—or other small experienced—federal contractors; it helps increase the protégé firm’s wealth and create jobs through government contracts; and it also helps large mentor firms develop and increase their supply chain through building capable small business contractors,” Clifford declared.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.afcea.org/content/small-business-mentor-protege-program-fuels-cooperation

USDOT is on the hunt for automation, blockchain and more

By

The U.S. Department of Transportation is looking to fund a new slate of emerging technology applications, including automation and blockchain.

USDOT opened the fiscal 2019 solicitation for its Small Business Innovation Research program Tuesday, calling on small businesses to provide solutions focused in 12 topic areas:

  • Automated Detection of Broken Spike Fasteners in Wood Tie Railroad Track
  • Automated Driving Systems Test Data Interface
  • Automated, Drone-Based Grade Crossing Inspection
  • Cost Allocation Technology for Non-Emergency Medical Transportation
  • Improved Condition Monitoring of Traction Motors
  • Inline-Inspection Tool for Detecting Coating Defects/Disbondment of Coating
  • Innovative, Low-Cost Methods for Concrete Bridge Deck Assessment
  • In-Vehicle Highway Rail Grade Crossing Alert System
  • Portable Stiffness/Elastic Modulus Measurement System
  • Secure Motor Carrier Safety Data Information Exchange Using Blockchain
  • Vehicle Communication via Induction Paint
  • Wireless Pore Water Pressure Sensor

The SBIR program is administered by the Small Business Administration and includes 11 federal agencies that award R&D contracts to fund and mature new potential technology applications.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.fedscoop.com/dot-opens-solicitation-new-innovative-technologies/

How to Apply
  • Read the 2019 Solicitation for information about the 2019 topics and about proposal requirements.
  • Review the 19 Technical and Administrative Questions
  • If you do not see the answer to your question(s), submit additional technical or administrative questions to the U.S. DOT SBIR Program Office at dotsbir@dot.gov.
  • All questions and answers will be posted as soon as they are received and answered by DOT SBIR program experts.

Submit a proposal through DOT’s SBIR secure site.

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More