set-aside | The Contracting Education Academy

January 14, 2021 By cs

COFC confirms ‘rule of two’ analysis applies before agency decides to utilize a multiple-award vehicle

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) issued a decision on Nov. 30, 2020 that supported the Small Business Administration’s position regarding the Rule of Two analysis requirements for government acquisitions.

The central question surrounding the case was whether the U.S. Army could cancel a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8 service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside procurement under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and move the requirement to a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (MAIDIQ) contract vehicle that the plaintiff, The Tolliver Group, Inc. (Tolliver), did not hold.

In its protest, Tolliver argued, in part, that the Army’s actions violated the Rule of Two because the agency was required to determine whether two or more small businesses were capable of performing the requirement prior to choosing to put the procurement on the MAIDIQ contract.

The COFC’s decision confirms that the Rule of Two analysis applies before an agency elects to procure a requirement from a multiple-award contract (MAC) vehicle under FAR Part 16.5.

The Rule of Two requires contracting officers to set aside any acquisition over the simplified acquisition threshold for small business participation when there is a reasonable expectation that (1) offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns and (2) the award will be made at fair market prices.

In Tolliver, the Army argued that a Rule of Two analysis was not required because—according the Small Business Jobs Act, as implemented in 15 U.S.C. § 644(r)—federal agencies have the discretion to issue MACs without first conducting a Rule of Two analysis to determine whether it should be set aside for small businesses.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cofc-confirms-rule-of-two-analysis-83418/

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

December 18, 2020 By cs

Court of Appeals issues important decision on application of False Claims Act to set-aside contracts

On December 3, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Strock, a ruling that will significantly strengthen the hand of the government, and of qui tam whistleblowers, in False Claims Act cases against companies awarded government set-aside contracts but do not meet the requirements of the particular set-aside.

The contracts at issue in Strock were set aside for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs).

Still, the Court’s reasoning also applies to other types of set-aside contracts, such as small business, women-owned small business, or HUBZone set-asides. This decision should hearten whistleblowers who have information about fraud in government contracting set-aside programs.

The Facts Of United States v. Strock

The government sued Strock Contracting, its owner Lee Strock, and one of Strock’s employees. The government alleged that Strock set up a new company called Veteran Enterprises Company (VECO) to bid on SDVOSB-reserved contracts from the Army, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. Strock, however, was not a disabled veteran. Instead, he recruited another individual, a disabled veteran named Terry Anderson.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-appeals-issues-important-decision-application-false-claims-act-to-set-aside

Read the full decision in this case at: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/36dc4bcd-69b0-4890-b0e2-56e98757e39f/3/doc/19-4331_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/36dc4bcd-69b0-4890-b0e2-56e98757e39f/3/hilite/

October 20, 2020 By cs

Nonprofit to pay $1.9 million to settle false claims and kickback allegations on federal contracts for blind workers

Industries for the Blind and Visually Impaired Inc. (IBI) has agreed to pay $1,938,684.09 to resolve allegations that IBI violated the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Act in connection with certain federal contracts set aside to employ blind workers, the Justice Department has announced.

IBI is a nonprofit corporation headquartered in West Allis, Wisconsin that receives set-aside contracts from federal agencies under the federal government’s Ability One Program. In exchange, IBI agrees to give jobs to workers who are blind or visually-impaired and comply with other contractual requirements.

The settlement resolves allegations that, between 2009 and 2018, IBI misrepresented to the U.S. Ability One Commission when requesting set-aside contracts for furniture design and installation services that it would maintain a 3:1 blind-to-sighted ratio of employees, and that furniture designers and sales representatives working for IBI took impermissible payments and gifts from manufacturers on certain contracts. It also resolves claims that IBI improperly subcontracted a set-aside contract for screen-printed clothing to an entity that did not generally use blind labor.

The Ability One Commission operates under the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (JWOD Act), which was passed in 1971 to increase employment and training opportunities for persons who are blind or visually impaired, or who have disabilities so severe that they are otherwise unable to work at competitive employment. More than 400 companies participate in the AbilityOne Program and receive set-aside federal contracts in exchange for employing approximately 45,000 people who are blind or have severe disabilities.

Among the allegations resolved by the settlement are claims asserted in 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 lawsuit was filed by Paul Inzeo, formerly a marketing manager at IBI, whose share has not yet been decided.

The settlement also resolves conduct that IBI investigated and disclosed to the United States concerning the receipt of gifts and money by its furniture designers and sales representatives that was not alleged in the whistleblower complaint. It received credit in the settlement for its disclosure, cooperation, and remediation efforts in connection with this conduct.

The settlement was the result of a coordinated effort among the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, with assistance from GSA’s Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the AbilityOne Office of the Inspector General, and the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. The lawsuit resolved by the settlement is captioned United States ex rel. Inzeo v. Industries for the Blind, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-996 (E.D. Wisc.).

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wisconsin-based-nonprofit-pay-19-million-settle-allegations-false-claims-and-kickbacks

July 17, 2020 By cs

Former HR official steered sole-source $5 million training contract to friends, VA’s IG says

A former top human resources executive at the Department of Veterans Affairs improperly steered a contract to benefit two of his friends, the agency’s inspector general found in a recent report.

Peter Shelby, who briefly served as VA’s assistant secretary for human resources and administration, violated ethics laws and abused his position to award a $5 million contract to two friends.

The contract “resulted entirely in waste,” James Mitchell, VA’s acting assistant inspector general, said.

The contract was for leadership development and training for VA employees and applicant assessment tools. Shelby was friendly with the owner of the service-disabled veteran-owned small business that received the $5 million contract. He was also friends with the vice president of Blanchard, one of the subcontractors on the project, who had endorsed Shelby for the assistant secretary position back in 2017.

According to the IG, Shelby directed his staff to pursue a contract with the small business under a specific VA sole-source authority, which allows the department, under limited circumstances, to avoid the usual competitive bidding procedures. But in this case, those authorities were misused to benefit Shelby and the preferred small business, the IG said.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/veterans-affairs/2020/07/former-va-chco-steered-5m-training-and-development-contract-to-friends-ig-says/

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) issued a decision on Nov. 30, 2020 that supported the Small Business Administration’s position regarding the Rule of Two analysis requirements for government acquisitions.

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 Facts Of United States v. Strock

Industries for the Blind and Visually Impaired Inc. (IBI) has agreed to pay $1,938,684.09 to resolve allegations that IBI violated the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Act in connection with certain federal contracts set aside to employ blind workers, the Justice Department has announced.

A former top human resources executive at the Department of Veterans Affairs improperly steered a contract to benefit two of his friends, the agency’s inspector general found in a recent report.

Search this Website