Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

$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

‘Eliminate most DoD small business set-asides,’ says Section 809 Panel

By

The Section 809 Panel has recommended that Congress eliminate most small business set-asides for DoD acquisitions.

The Panel would replace the longstanding set-aside system with a meager five percent small business price preference.

For small government contractors, this recommendation is the policy equivalent of a five-alarm fire. Small contractors may need to fight hard to save the set-aside system.

Get ready for a battle.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/eliminate-most-dod-small-business-set-asides-says-section-809-panel/

Find all of the Section 809 Panel’s reports here: https://section809panel.org/media/updates/

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

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

Former company owner sentenced for $13.7 million ‘rent-a-vet’ scheme

By

A former operator of a Kansas City construction company, Patriot Company, Inc., was sentenced in federal court last week for his role in a “rent-a-vet” scheme to fraudulently obtain more than $13.7 million in federal contracts.

Jeffrey K. Wilson was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison without parole. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Wilson has also consented to the federal civil forfeiture of approximately $2.1 million.

On Jan. 31, 2018, Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of government program fraud. Co-defendant Paul R. Salavitch pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of making a false writing and awaits sentencing.

Wilson, who is not a veteran, managed the day-to-day operations and the long-term decision-making of Patriot Company from September 2005 to January 2014. Wilson and Salavitch falsely certified that Salavitch, who is a service-disabled veteran, was involved in the day-to-day operations of Patriot Company. Salavitch’s purported active management qualified Patriot Company to obtain set-aside contracts to which it was not entitled.

Wilson admitted he used Salavitch’s veteran and service-disabled veteran status in a “rent-a-vet” scheme to obtain 20 government contracts for which Patriot Company received more than $13.7 million.  As a result of the fraud scheme, legitimate veteran-owned-and-run businesses were not awarded these contracts. In one instance, according to court documents, Wilson brazenly challenged the government’s award of a set-aside contract to a service-disabled veteran bidder and Patriot Company fraudulently obtained that contract.

Wilson’s plea agreement cites 20 contracts with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Army, which were fraudulently obtained by Wilson, Salavitch and Patriot Company. The contracts, which ranged as high as $4.3 million, included construction projects in Missouri, South Dakota, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, Iowa, Illinois and North Dakota.

In September 2013, the Veterans Administration conducted an unannounced site visit of Patriot Company. The site inspector discovered that Salavitch was working 40 miles away at his full-time job as a federal employee with the Department of Defense in Leavenworth, Kansas.

Wilson did not stop violating the law even after the government’s site visit.  Instead, Wilson and Salavitch fought cancellation of Patriot Company’s status. In November 2013, Salavitch falsely certified to the Missouri Division of Purchasing and Materials Management that Patriot Company was a legitimate service-disabled veteran-owned small business when he knew it was not because he did not actively run the company. In December 2013, the Veterans Administration de-certified Patriot Company.

This case was investigated by the Department of Veterans Affairs – Office of Inspector General – Criminal Investigation Division, and the General Services Administration – Office of Inspector General.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/former-company-owner-sentenced-137-million-rent-vet-scheme

SBA’s IG questions eligibility of women-owned small businesses to receive contract set-asides

By

Federal contracting officers, along with firms representing themselves as woman-owned small businesses (WOSBs) did not comply with federal regulations in 50 instances of sole-source contract awards.  As a result, there is no assurance that the contracts were awarded to firms eligible to receive sole-source awards under the WOSB program administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

That’s the conclusion reached by the SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) in a report issued on June 20, 2018.

The OIG undertook its review of SBA’s WOSB program to determine whether the sole-source provisions that Congress included in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) were being effectively implemented.   Congressional intent was to expand the number of federal contracts being awarded to WOSBs and streamline the process by which WOSB status could be validated.  Thus, in its review, the OIG wanted to determine whether sole-source contract awards comply with program requirements, and whether firms that receive the set-asides conform to the self-certification requirements.

The OIG selected a sample of 56 contracts, worth $55.7 million, to review.  The sample represented 81 percent of the sole-source contracts awarded to WOSBs between the period of Jan. 1, 2016 and Apr. 30, 2017.  The OIG determined that federal regulations were not followed by federal officials or the WOSB firms themselves in connection with 50 of the 56 contracts.  The 50 contracts were valued at $52.2 million.  Based on its findings, the OIG determined that there “was no assurance that these contracts were awarded to firms that were eligible to receive sole-source awards” under the WOSB program.

The weaknesses noted in the OIG’s report are similar to those noted in a review conducted in 2015.  Then, the OIG recommended that SBA should increase its training and outreach to both federal contracting officials and businesses regarding their responsibilities under the WOSB program.

Once again, in its latest report, the OIG makes a series of recommendations to SBA administrators to remedy the newly-identified problems.  Among them:

  • The SBA should prevent contracting personnel from awarding contracts to ineligible firms by implementing a certification process that includes “reviewing, analyzing, and making an affirmative decision that applicants are eligible to participate” in the WOSB program.
  • SBA also should strengthen controls in FPDS-NG to preclude agencies from using ineligible NAICS codes for the WOSB program’s contracts.

Overall, the OIG is recommending that the WOSB program should be operated more in line with other certification programs operated by the SBA.  In response to these recommendations, however, the SBA estimates that it will take at least another year before it implements a WOSB certification process.  SBA management also states it does not have the responsibility for improving the integrity of data in FPDS-NG.

The OIG concludes that since errors are likely to continue to be made in NAICS code selection and that WOSB firms will be allowed to continue to self-certify, the program is subjected to “unnecessary risks of fraud and abuse.”  In light of this condition, the OIG’s recent report offers six specific recommendations the SBA should take now to expand oversight and prevent agencies from awarding contracts to ineligible firms.

‘Cascading’ set-asides now authorized at the VA

By

In what many will see as VA’s continued assault on its Veterans First Contracting Program post-Kingdomware, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently implemented “Cascading” set-asides.

The VA refers to these set-asides as “Tiered Evaluations,” noting they are also known as “Cascading” set-asides.

The VA issued Acquisition Policy Flash (No. 18-15), transmitting Procurement Policy Memorandum (PPM) No. 2018-04, dated and effective February 8, 2018.

The VA issued the PPM in response to requests from VA contracting officers requesting guidance and procedures for the use of tiered evaluations within a single synopsized solicitation when applying the “VA Rule of Two.”

Keep reading this article at: http://vetlikeme.org/its-official-cascading-set-asides-are-now-authorized-at-the-department-of-veterans-affairs/

Small business fraud leads to large monetary liability in recent cases

By

Two Washington, D.C. area government contractors have agreed to pay the government for their respective roles in defrauding the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in schemes to fraudulently obtain government contracts set aside for small businesses.  These two cases highlight the importance of small business compliance and the submission of accurate and complete certifications.

the first company had to pay $16 million for violating the False Claims Act (FCA).

In the second instance, company owners paid $1.25 million — and got prison time — for 8(a) set-aside contract fraud.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/small-business-fraud-leads-to-large-36348/

 

WOSB program: Company ineligible because husband managed business

By

A self-certified woman-owned small business was ineligible for a WOSB set-aside contract because the woman owner’s husband held the company’s highest officer position and appeared to manage its day-to-day operations.

A recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision highlights the importance of ensuring that a woman be responsible for managing the day-to-day business of a WOSB–and that the woman’s role be reflected both in the corporate paperwork and in practice.

OHA’s decision in Yard Masters, Inc., SBA No. WOSB-109 (2017) involved an Army solicitation for grounds maintenance services.  The solicitation was issued as a WOSB set-aside under NAICS code 561730 (Landscaping Services), with a corresponding $7 million size standard.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/women-owned-small-business-program/wosb-program-company-ineligible-because-husband-managed-business/

NAICS code appeals: One size does not fit all

By

The federal government sets aside many contracts for small businesses, but not all small business set-asides are created equal.

Instead, different size standards define small business status for different procurements.  The size standards vary from industry to industry, so a given firm may be a small business for one procurement at the same time it may be other-than-small for a different procurement for seemingly similar goods or services.

To keep order, the Small Business Administration (SBA) maintains a manual of industrial codes – called North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes – that are assigned to particular classes of manufacturing and service industries.  Each NAICS code is associated with a particular size standard that changes over time.  Some size standards are based on a firm’s revenues and are expressed as dollar values – a firm is small if its average annual receipts do not exceed the specified number of dollars.  Others are based on the size of a firm’s workforce – a firm is small if its average number of employees does not exceed the figure associated with the particular NAICS code in question.

For each procurement in excess of the micro-purchase threshold (currently $3,500 for most acquisitions), the contracting officer, per FAR 19.303, must designate within the solicitation a single NAICS code that best corresponds to the goods or services the agency is soliciting.   The chosen NAICS code establishes the size standard for that procurement.  If the procurement is a small business set-aside, the size standard can determine (in large part) whether a particular offeror is eligible for award.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=629604

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More