small disadvantaged business | 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

July 14, 2020 By cs

Contractor to pay $1 million to settle claims of fraudulently representing airport work by small disadvantaged business

Williams Brothers Construction Inc. (WBCI) has agreed to pay $1 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by misrepresenting its use of a small disadvantaged business to obtain a federally-funded construction contract, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program of the Department of Transportation creates important opportunities for small businesses to participate in construction projects paid for with federal funds,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “We will hold accountable those who misrepresent their compliance with program requirements to obtain taxpayer funds to which they are not entitled, and thereby undermine the program’s goal of supporting small businesses.”

The settlement resolves claims arising from WBCI’s construction of a new terminal building at the Peoria International Airport using Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant funds, and is based on the following factors:

The FAA grant required the use of disadvantaged business enterprises for part of the construction.
DOJ contends that WBCI knowingly made false representations regarding its plans to use a disadvantaged small firm on the project and then falsified documents to make it appear that an eligible business did window, glazing, and curtain wall work.
Instead, WBCI allegedly used that business only as a pass-through and had the work done by an ineligible company.

The settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois, and U.S. DOT’s Office of Inspector General.

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

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/government-contractor-pay-1-million-settle-claims-fraudulently-representing-work-small

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

April 25, 2017 By AMK

High court asked to review SBA disadvantaged biz program

An information technology contractor has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a D.C. Circuit decision upholding the U.S. Small Business Administration‘s 8(a) program for disadvantaged small businesses, arguing the panel’s majority failed to recognize that the program involves racial classification that requires strict scrutiny.

Rothe Development Inc., a nonminority-owned small business that mostly bids on federal defense contracts, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari after the D.C. Circuit denied panel and full-body rehearings of its split September opinion. In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel rejected Rothe’s challenge to the law underpinning the 8(a) program, ruling that the program was not unconstitutionally based on race.

However, in Rothe’s petition, filed on April 13, the contractor argued that until the panel issued its majority decision, Congress, the federal government and the courts had all recognized that the statutory provisions of the program use race-conscious means “to distribute burdens and benefits.” The panel’s assertion that the law implementing the program is race-neutral on its face ignores the plain language of the statute, Rothe said.

“In sum, the statutory provisions of the Section 8(a) program contain a paradigmatic racial classification because they distribute burdens and benefits on the basis of race,” Rothe said. “Because the panel majority’s contrary conclusion and failure to apply strict scrutiny are irreconcilable with the plain language of the provisions and this court’s precedents, review is warranted.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.law360.com/publicpolicy/articles/914715/high-court-asked-to-review-sba-disadvantaged-biz-program

October 4, 2016 By AMK

D.C. Circuit upholds constitutionality of SBA’s 8(a) program

Last month, in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense, the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) 8(a) program by rejecting arguments that the Small Business Act contains an unconstitutional classification based on race.

8a-decision-sept-2016 The goal of the SBA’s 8(a) program is to expand government contracting opportunities to small business owners. Under the Small Business Act, the SBA enters into contracts with other federal agencies, which the SBA then subcontracts to eligible small businesses to compete for subcontracts in a sheltered market. Businesses owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged” individuals are eligible to participate in the 8(a) program.

Per the statute, socially disadvantaged individuals are those “who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2016/09/d-c-circuit-upholds-constitutionality-sbas-8a-program/

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?

Williams Brothers Construction Inc. (WBCI) has agreed to pay $1 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by misrepresenting its use of a small disadvantaged business to obtain a federally-funded construction contract, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Last month, in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense, the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) 8(a) program by rejecting arguments that the Small Business Act contains an unconstitutional classification based on race.

Search this Website