ownership and control | The Contracting Education Academy

February 5, 2021 By cs

Why bylaws and operating agreements matter in applications for small business certification

If you are a business owner, when is the last time, if ever, that you read your corporate bylaws or your LLC’s operating agreement?

Do you understand how they affect your control of the business?

Understanding how your corporate documents affect an owner’s ability to control a business is vitally important, and even more so when applying for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) or Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) certification. All three of these certifications require that the woman or minority owner legally controls the company.

You may be surprised how many owners think that they own a controlling share of their company, when, in fact, their corporate documents hamper their control. Some do not realize this until they are going through the certification process. Perhaps the company drafted its corporate documents itself or used an attorney that wasn’t familiar with the certification requirements. In any event, a review by a knowledgeable attorney prior to submission of the certification application could have helped reach a different outcome.

Where we most often see issues hampering the control of an owner are in quorum and voting requirements. T his is highlighted by several recent decisions by the U.S. Department of Transportation, denying DBE certification based on issues with the companies’ corporate documents.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/why-bylaws-and-operating-agreements-matter-your-application-disadvantaged-enterprise

January 8, 2021 By cs

Judge rules that lying about 8(a) eligibility violates False Claims Act

Another court has joined the growing chorus of judges who are singing the same tune on set-aside fraud: when a government contractor lies about its eligibility for a set-aside contract, it violates the False Claims Act, and can be sued by either the Department of Justice or a whistleblower.

The new case is United States ex rel. Montes v. Main Building Maintenance Inc., and the decision was issued on December 22, 2020, by Judge Jason Pulliam of the Western District of Texas.

This is a qui tam case brought under the False Claims Act by a whistleblower, or “relator” as it’s called under that statute. The relator alleges that two parents, Robert and Elvira Ximenes, created a company, JXM, to bid on government contracts reserved (or, in technical terms, “set aside”) for contractors that qualified for the so-called “8(a) Business Development program” for small businesses that are owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged people or entities.”

To qualify for such set-aside contracts, the business must first be “certified” as eligible by the Small Business Administration (SBA). And to be eligible for such certification, the business must make a series of representation to SBA about who both owns the business, and who controls the business.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-judge-texas-rules-lying-about-eligibility-8a-business-development-program

June 5, 2020 By cs

Contractors to pay $2.8 million to settle False Claims Act allegations of fraudulently obtained small business contracts

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based contractor Ross Group Construction Corporation (Ross Group), and its corporate affiliates, have agreed to pay over $2.8 million to settle allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by improperly obtaining federal set-aside contracts reserved for disadvantaged small businesses, the Justice Department announced this week.

To qualify as a small business for purposes of U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) programs, companies must meet defined eligibility criteria, including requirements concerning size, ownership, and operational control. The settlement with Ross Group resolves allegations that the company fraudulently induced the government to award certain small business set-aside contracts to several affiliated entities that did not meet eligibility requirements.

The government alleged that Ross Group created two companies, PentaCon LLC and C3 LLC, to obtain small business set-aside contracts for which Ross Group itself was ineligible. Also alleged was that Ross Group maintained operational control over the day-to-day and long-term management decisions of the two purported small businesses, including controlling their financial affairs and business operations, and that, as a result, neither PentaCon nor C3 satisfied the size and eligibility requirements to participate in the set-aside programs. Ross Group, PentaCon, and C3 allegedly concealed their affiliation from the government and knowingly misrepresented the eligibility of PentaCon and C3 for the set-aside contracts.

The settlement with Ross Group and its corporate affiliates 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 Western District of Oklahoma and is captioned United States ex rel. Southwind Construction Services, LLC v. The Ross Group Construction Corporation, et al., Case No. 15-0102-R (W.D. Okla.). As part of the resolution of this matter, the whistleblower will receive approximately $520,000.

The settlement is the result of a coordinated effort among the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma, DCIS, the Inspector General Offices of the SBA, General Services Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Army Criminal Investigation Division Major Procurement Fraud Unit.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oklahoma-contractors-pay-28-million-settle-false-claims-act-allegations-concerning

December 12, 2019 By cs

GAO says DoD’s fraud assessment efforts should include examination of contractor ownership

Some companies doing business with the Defense Department have opaque ownership structures that may conceal who owns, controls, or benefits from the company.

This GAO illustration depicts how DoD’s use of an ineligible foreign manufacturer — that illegally exported sensitive military data and provided defective and nonconforming parts — led to the grounding of at least 47 U.S. fighter aircraft.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently identified fraud and national security risks to DoD from opaque ownership such as ineligible contractors receiving contracts and foreign firms receiving sensitive information through U.S.-based companies.

These risks, identified through GAO’s review of 32 adjudicated cases, include price inflation through multiple companies owned by the same entity to falsely create the appearance of competition, contractors receiving contracts they were not eligible to receive, and a foreign manufacturer receiving sensitive information or producing faulty equipment through a U.S.-based company.

For example, one case involved an ineligible foreign manufacturer that illegally exported sensitive military data and provided defective and nonconforming parts that led to the grounding of at least 47 fighter aircraft.

The GAO reports that DoD has taken some steps that could address some of the risks related to contractor ownership in the procurement process but has not yet assessed these risks across the department. DoD, in coordination with other agencies, revised the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in 2014 to require contractors to self-report some ownership information. In addition, DoD has taken steps to identify and use ownership information — for example, as part of its supply-chain risk analysis when acquiring critical components. DoD has also begun a department-wide fraud risk management program but, according to GAO, it has neither assessed risks of contractor ownership across the department nor identified risks posed by contractor ownership as a specific area for assessment.

GAO contends that assessing risks arising from contractor ownership would allow DoD to take a strategic approach to identifying and managing these risks, make informed decisions on how to best use its resources, and evaluate its existing control activities to ensure they effectively respond to these risks.

Keep reading this GAO report summary at: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-106#summary

June 16, 2016 By AMK

Consulting firm found guilty in DBE fraud case

Transit Safety Management, Inc., was sentenced Thursday to making a false statement to the government in connection with its certification for “favored contracting status.”

US DOT The firm’s president, Susan Madigan, pleaded guilty earlier this year to one criminal count of lying to a state agency about the firm’s status as a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE).

The company was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton to five years of probation and a fine of $84,000.

In order to qualify for favored status, a company’s management must be controlled by a socially or economically disadvantaged individual such as a woman or minority. The purpose of the program is to give an economic advantage to minorities and women who run their own companies. However, the manager cannot also engage in employment that would prevent him or her from devoting sufficient attention to the affairs of the company.

In this case, investigators discovered that TSM’s purported owner, Madigan, was a full-time employee of a federal agency and the business was really operated by her husband making it ineligible for certification.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.newburyportnews.com/news/local_news/georgetown-firm-found-guilty-in-fraud-case/article_79eeaae0-be38-5753-8b69-3f79e3d31284.html

See earlier report on this case at: http://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/?p=9107

If you are a business owner, when is the last time, if ever, that you read your corporate bylaws or your LLC’s operating agreement?

Another court has joined the growing chorus of judges who are singing the same tune on set-aside fraud: when a government contractor lies about its eligibility for a set-aside contract, it violates the False Claims Act, and can be sued by either the Department of Justice or a whistleblower.

Some companies doing business with the Defense Department have opaque ownership structures that may conceal who owns, controls, or benefits from the company.

Transit Safety Management, Inc., was sentenced Thursday to making a false statement to the government in connection with its certification for “favored contracting status.”

Search this Website