I am excited to announce the re-launch of the popular SmallGovCon Week In Review series! Each Friday, SmallGovCon will provide a snapshot of some of the week’s top news and commentary from the government contracting community.
In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, a False Claims Act settlement, a proposal to ban so-called “inverted” firms from receiving government contracts, Guy Timberlake weighs in on the proposed increase to the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, and much more.
A small business and its owner have agreed to pay $250,000 to resolve HUBZone fraud allegations, including a claim that the company’s HUBZone office was a “virtual” location where no employees actually worked.
According to a Department of Justice press release, Air Ideal, Inc. and its majority owner have also agreed to pay the government five percent of the company’s gross revenues over the next five years.
A large business has agreed to pay $1.1 million to resolve allegations that it created a “front company” to be awarded a SDVOSB set-aside contract–and then served as a “pass through” by performing the work itself.
In addition to the $1.1 million penalty agreed to by the large contractor, the putative SDVOSB has agreed to pay the government $50,000, plus five annual contingency payments equal to one percent of its total annual revenues.
A HUBZone contractor has been accused of HUBZone program fraud for allegedly falsely claiming to be located in a HUBZone, when in fact the office in question was a “virtual office” where no employees worked.
According to a Department of Justice press release, the contractor not only misrepresented its principal office location, but submitted a fabricated lease to the SBA as part of its HUBZone application.
Sales of Chinese products off the GSA Schedule has resulted in a $2.3 million False Claims Act settlement.
According to a Department of Justice press release, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. has agreed to the settlement to resolve allegations that Samsung informed GSA Schedule resellers that certain products were manufactured in “designated countries” under the Trade Agreements Act, when in fact those products were manufactured in China.
An 8(a) Program mentor has agreed to pay a False Claims Act settlement of $928,000. The settlement stems from the government’s claims that the mentor abused the 8(a) mentor-protege program.
According to a Department of Justice press release, the mentor firm performed eight 8(a) prime contracts on behalf of its protege–without an SBA-approved joint venture. The government also contended that the mentor’s extensive role resulted in the protege firm failing to meet the applicable limitation on subcontracting.
A New York government contractor has agreed to pay $5.65 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by failing to comply with the Price Reduction Clause in its GSA Schedule contract.
The hefty settlement is a strong reminder that the GSA takes the Price Reduction Clause very seriously, and that failing to abide by the Price Reduction Clause can lead to significant repercussions.