ownership and control | The Contracting Education Academy

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

February 3, 2016 By AMK

DOJ finds federal employee’s business ownership fraudulent, fines DBE firm $84,000

A Massachusetts-based transportation consulting company has been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with making a false statement in connection with its certification for favored contracting status.

Transit Safety Management, Inc. (TSM) was charged with one count of making a false statement to a state agency in order to maintain its status as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE).

In order to qualify as a DBE, 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 of the DBE cannot also engage in employment that would prevent her from devoting sufficient attention to the affairs of the DBE. In this case investigators discovered that TSM’s purported owner was a full-time employee of a federal agency and the business was really operated by her husband making it ineligible for certification as a DBE.

TSM provided consulting services to the railroad industry, focusing on safety and operations management. Shortly after it was founded in 1999, TSM’s owner certified the company as a DBE. As such, TSM was able to take advantage of federal regulations aimed at promoting the participation of minority and disadvantaged businesses in federally-funded public construction contracts. Under the DBE regulations, a contractor on federally-assisted transportation projects must either subcontract a percentage of its work to a DBE or show that it made a good faith effort to subcontract work to a DBE but was unable to do so. This requirement makes the DBE status a valuable and potentially lucrative designation.

In order to maintain its DBE certification, TSM had to make yearly affirmations that it was still eligible and that nothing had changed that would affect its eligibility for the favored DBE status. Despite this, TSM lied about whether it met the criteria for DBE status. According to court documents, TSM’s owner was hired as a full-time employee with a federal agency in 2005. As a full-time federal employee, TSM’s purported manager could not control TSM under the regulations. Nevertheless, TSM failed to disclose this change and continued to make its yearly affirmations to maintain is DBE status.

As part of its plea agreement, TSM has agreed to pay a fine of $84,000 and dissolve its operations.

United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz; Todd Damiani, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations; and Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division, made the announcement of the plea agreement. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugenia M. Carris of Ortiz’s Public Corruption Unit.

The details contained in the Information are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/massachusetts-company-charged-connection-disadvantaged-business-enterprise-fraud

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.”

A Massachusetts-based transportation consulting company has been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with making a false statement in connection with its certification for favored contracting status.

Search this Website