A Florida resident has pleaded guilty in an 8(a) Program fraud case that seemingly has it all in terms of small business violations, from affiliation to subcontracting limits.
According to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, Michael Dunkel has pleaded guilty on charges of major government fraud, and faces the potential of significant prison time when sentencing occurs this fall.
A procuring agency appropriately refused to give an 8(a) participant the highest-possible past performance score, despite the 8(a) company’s plan to subcontract to the successful incumbent contractor.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO held that in evaluating past performance, the agency properly focused on the experience of the 8(a) prime, which was required to perform at least 51% of the contract work and manage the contract.
A proposal submitted on behalf of an 8(a) company claimed that the company had performed a $3 million NASA contract even though no such contract existed, according to a recent report issued by the SBA Office of Inspector General. As alleged in the SBA OIG report, the same honesty-challenged 8(a) company claimed to have 33 employees, even though it never had more than two.
Perhaps it is little wonder that the company in question is alleged to have passed through nearly 100% of its work on several 8(a) set-asides to its non-8(a) subcontractor.
Congress has enacted major changes to the limitations on subcontracting rules for small government contractors.
The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Obama on January 3, contains two important changes to the subcontracting limits. First, for services contracts, compliance with the limitations on subcontracting will be based on the total amount paid to the small business, not the cost of the contract incurred for personnel. Second, small businesses will be able to meet their own performance requirements by subcontracting to other small companies.
The SBA’s waiver of the non-manufacturer rule in connection with an 8(a) sole source contract resulted in a “pass through” award to a large business, according to a report by the SBA Office of Inspector General. As a result, the 8(a) contractor in question received only $153,000 for “minimal” oversight, while the remainder of the $7.78 million 8(a) set-aside contract went to large companies.
The SBA OIG was quick to point out that the arrangement was legal, but questioned whether the pass-through provided appropriate developmental opportunities to the 8(a) contractor–as well as whether taxpayers are well-served by such large percentages of “small business” contracting dollars flowing to large companies.
Inexperienced small government contractors sometimes rely primarily (or completely) on larger subcontractors to boost their past performance scores. Although this practice sometimes results in better past performance scores, there are two risks small government contractors should be aware of when it comes to relying on a subcontractor’s past performance: poor evaluations and ostensible subcontractor affiliation.
A recent GAO bid protest decision, coupled with a decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, demonstrates how each risk may affect a small government contractor.
I travel with some frequency, but will readily admit that I hate flying (I trace it largely to an unpleasant incident several years ago involving a rapid cabin depressurization and emergency landing). I’ve been known to pay a few dollars more to take a direct flight rather than a less expensive option involving a connection. For me, while price is an important factor, other factors, like convenience–and fewer takeoffs and landings–matter, too.
A recent size appeal decision issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals demonstrates that, like my flying arrangements, price is not the only factor when it comes to determining whether a prime/subcontractor team has violated the ostensible subcontractor rule. As this size appeal decision shows, in some cases, there may be no ostensible subcontractor affiliation even if the subcontractor will perform the bulk of the overall contract value.