Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

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

4 ways to avoid suspension or debarment on federal contracts

By

The U.S. government appropriated $120 billion for federal construction spending in 2017, covering a range of projects from the construction of a new Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to building agricultural research facilities, according to the Associated General Contractors of America. President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget proposal, even with its cuts to key federal spending programs and new funds for a U.S.–Mexico border wall, calls for roughly the same level of investment.

Because of the potential for a big payoff, some companies have elected to become experts in the federal contracting field, making it the focal point of their business plans. Other contractors, like international design, engineering and construction firm AECOM, have set up specialized business units to take advantage of government contracting opportunities.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.constructiondive.com/news/the-dotted-line-4-ways-to-avoid-suspension-or-debarment-on-federal-contrac/448789/

 

Defense contractor to pay $16 million to settle false claims allegations over small business contracts

By

Virginia-based contractor ADS Inc. and its subsidiaries have agreed to pay $16 million to settle allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by knowingly conspiring with and causing purported small businesses to submit false claims for payment in connection with fraudulently obtained small business contracts, the Department of Justice announced last week.

The settlement also resolves allegations that ADS engaged in improper bid rigging relating to certain of the fraudulently obtained contracts. The settlement with ADS ranks as one of the largest recoveries involving alleged fraud in connection with small business contracting eligibility.

In order to qualify as a small business, companies must meet defined eligibility criteria, including requirements concerning size, ownership, and operational control.  The settlement with ADS resolves allegations that ADS, together with several purported small businesses that it controlled, fraudulently induced the government to award certain small business set-aside contracts by misrepresenting eligibility requirements. The purported small businesses affiliated with ADS include Mythics Inc., London Bridge Trading Co. Ltd., as well as MJL Enterprises LLC, which falsely claimed to be an eligible service-disabled veteran-owned company, and SEK Solutions LLC and Karda Systems LLC, both of which falsely claimed to qualify as socially or economically disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program. ADS and its affiliates allegedly concealed the companies’ affiliations with ADS and knowingly made misrepresentations concerning the size of the businesses and their eligibility as service-disabled or 8(a) qualified businesses. Finally, the settlement resolves allegations that ADS engaged in illegal bid rigging schemes that inflated or distorted prices charged to the government under certain contracts.

The settlement with ADS resolves a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery. The civil lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia by Ameliorate Partners LLP. As part of today’s resolution, the whistleblower will receive approximately $2.9 million.

The settlement is the result of a coordinated effort among the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Virginia, the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General, and the General Services Administration’s Office of Inspector General.  The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/defense-contractor-ads-inc-agrees-pay-16-million-settle-false-claims-act-allegations

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/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More