Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

GTPAC launches Veterans verification video

By

The Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (“GTPAC”) has created a new free training resource for Veteran small business owners.  GTPAC, with the support of the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”), has produced a free video that provides a detailed explanation of how Veterans can get their small business verified as a Veteran-Owned Small Business (“VOSB”) or Service-disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (“SDVOSB”) under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) Vets First Verification Program.

SDVOSBs and VOSBs receive certain preferences in the federal procurement process, including SDVOSB and VOSB set-aside contracts, sole-source awards (for SDVOSBs), and subcontracting opportunities with federal prime contractors, who are often required to utilize SDVOSBs and VOSBs in their subcontracting plans.

“This video is a great resource for helping VOSBs and SDVOSBs understand the verification process at VA, and how they can benefit from getting verified,” said Andrew E. Smith, Program Manager of the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center, he continued, “We take great pride in assisting our Veteran small business clients here in Georgia, and want them to take full advantage of the opportunities that are available to them.”

Each year, the federal government awards billions of dollars in contracts to VOSBs and SDVOSBs.  Federal prime contractors also frequently subcontract work to VOSBs and SDVOSBs when performing large government contracts.

GTPAC hopes this video helps Veterans understand the verification process, and makes that process a little bit easier.

Additional resources including links to key VA Verification websites is available on the Veterans Verification Video page.

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/

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.

Federal Circuit dismisses SDVOSB appeal as moot

By

On Nov. 20, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seemingly ended the Veterans Contracting Group line of cases.

As a refresher, in those cases, the contractor challenged the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) determination that it was an ineligible Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) reciprocal removal from its SDVOSB database. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that under the new SDVOSB regulations effective Oct. 1, 2018, the two sets of regulations are now uniform. While non-precedential in nature, the Federal Circuit’s decision also raises questions of the consequential nature of the newly promulgated regulations for decisions currently pending before courts and administrative forums.

By way of background, the Veterans Contracting Group line of cases highlight some of the many conflicts that existed between the SBA and VA rules prior to the release of new rules by each respective agency in October 2018. The decisions are also demonstrative of the consequential results for contractors due to the previous split between the regulations. In these lines of cases, the contractor received several conflicting decisions, often over facially slight differences between the regulations on ownership and “unconditional ownership” requirements. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Veterans Contracting Group v. United States et. al, No. 2018-1410 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2018) will likely become the final voice in the matter, and seemingly puts an end to appeals and differing opinions over these regulations—at least for the contractor.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=758386

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

SBA’s OHA clarifies negative control restrictions – But do the new SDVOSB regulations limit its impact?

By

Between new regulations from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and decisions from the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), the limits of acceptable actions by small business owners set on maintaining their small business size status continues to change.

Most recently, OHA issued a noteworthy decision that clarifies restrictions on negative control of small businesses, including what actions it considers “extraordinary actions” and what actions are ordinary actions related to the daily control of a company. OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of Southern Contracting Solutions III, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5956 (2018) is helpful in understanding the parameters of permissible negative control since OHA provided its clearest list to date of “extraordinary actions” and “ordinary” actions essential to the daily operation of the company.

However, it is important to note that the impact of the ruling, as far as service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), will be limited in light of the new SBA and VA regulations.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=750078

In VA procurements, veteran-owned businesses trump all other contractors

By

On October 17, 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”) must give priority to veteran-owned small businesses (“VOSB”) when awarding contracts.  (PDS Consultants Inc. v. U.S., et al., Nos. 17-2379 and 17-2512, 2018 WL 5019735 – Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2018).

At first blush, no one would argue with the foregoing statement.

But, this mandate became less clear when the VA was faced with awarding a contract to a VOSB or following an otherwise mandatory requirement for all federal agencies to buy a specific list of items made by nonprofits employing the blind and significantly disabled.

Here is the source of confusion. More than 40 years ago, Congress enacted the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (“JWOD”), which required federal agencies to buy certain items and services from nonprofits that employ the blind or people with other significant disabilities. Today, this mandatory procurement policy is implemented through the AbilityOne program.

In 2006, Congress passed the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act (“VBA”). As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Kingdomware, the VBA made it mandatory in almost every procurement for the VA to follow the “Rule of Two.” The “Rule of Two” requires the VA to award a contract to a VOSB whenever at least two VOSBs can perform the work at a reasonable price.

Keep reading this article at: https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2018/10/18/in-department-of-veterans-affairs-procurements-veteran-owned-businesses-trump-all-other-contractors

New consolidated SDVOSB eligibility requirements: The good, the bad, and the downright ugly

By

This article was written by Steve Koprince who is the author of the book entitled “The Small-Business Guide to Government Contracts.”

New, consolidated SDVOSB eligibility regulations kicked in on October 1.

The new regulations replace the old VA and SBA rules, which provided separate eligibility standards for SDVOSBs.

Veterans have long been confused by the fact that the Government operated two separate SDVOSB programs, each with its own standards.  The consolidated rule will eliminate that confusion, and that’s a very good thing.  There are also several other pieces of the new SDVOSB eligibility rule that veterans should like–but also some that aren’t so great, or that require further clarification as to how they’ll be applied.

My colleague Matt Schoonover provided a broader overview of the new regulations earlier last week.  Now it’s time for me to get on my soapbox.  Without further ado, here’s my list of the good, bad, and the downright ugly from the new SDVOSB regulations.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/new-consolidated-sdvosb-eligibility-requirements-the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-ugly

VA using SBA’s SDVOSB eligibility rules starting Oct. 1st

By

The VA will begin using the SBA’s eligibility rules to verify service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) and veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) beginning October 1, 2018.

In a final rule published Sept. 24th in the Federal Register, the VA confirms that the SBA’s eligibility requirements will apply beginning next week–but in my eyes, one very important question remains unanswered.

As regular SmallGovCon readers know, the differences between the government’s two SDVOSB programs have caused major headaches for veterans.  Because the two sets of regulations have different eligibility requirements, a company may be an eligible SDVOSB under one set of rules, but not the other.

In 2016, Congress addressed the problem.  As part of the 2017 NDAA, Congress directed the VA to verify SDVOSBs and VOSBs using the SBA’s regulatory definitions regarding small business status, ownership, and control.  Congress told the SBA and VA to work together to develop joint regulations governing SDVOSB and VOSB eligibility.  The VA published a proposed rule earlier this year to eliminate its separate SDVOSB and VOSB eligibility requirements.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/va-will-use-sba-sdvosb-eligibility-rules-starting-october-1-2018/

SBA reiterates that VetBiz verification is not required for non-VA SDVOSB contracts

By

Despite a longstanding and very common misconception, the VA’s SDVOSB verification requirement doesn’t apply to non-VA SDVOSB contracts.

As the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals recently reiterated, it was “simply not correct” to believe that a company was required to be verified in VetBiz to be awarded a non-VA SDVOSB contract.

Confusingly, the federal government currently runs two SDVOSB programs: one under the VA’s rules and the other under the SBA’s.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/vetbiz-verification-not-required-for-non-va-sdvosb-contracts-sba-oha-reiterates/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More