Tag Archives: Peggy E. Gustafson

Washington Gas Energy Systems Agrees to Pay $2.5 Million in Fines and Penalties for Conspiring to Obtain Federal Contracts

Posted on by
Washington Gas Energy Systems (WGESystems) has agreed to pay more than $2.5 million in fines and monetary penalties for conspiring to commit fraud on the United States by illegally obtaining contracts that were meant for small, disadvantaged businesses.

The court agreement was announced today by William J. Baer, Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division; Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney Vincent H. Cohen Jr. of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia; Robert C. Erickson, Acting Inspector General of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA); Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General for the Small Business Administration (SBA), and Andrew G. McCabe, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

WGESystems, based in Virginia, is a wholly owned subsidiary of WGL Holdings Inc. (WGL).  WGL is the parent company for all of the corporations within the Washington Gas family.  WGESystems plays no direct role in the delivery of natural gas, and it is not a utility.  It is a design-build firm that specializes in providing energy efficiency and sustainability solutions to clients.

A criminal information was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charging WGESystems with one count of knowingly and willfully conspiring to commit major fraud on the United States.  WGESystems waived the requirement of being charged by way of federal indictment, agreed to the filing of the information, and has accepted responsibility for its criminal conduct and that of its employees.

In addition, as part of a deferred prosecution agreement reached with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Antitrust Division, WGESystems agreed to pay a fine of $1,560,000 and a monetary penalty of $1,027,261 within five days of the approval of the agreement by the court.

According to court documents filed today, WGESystems conspired with a company that was eligible to receive federal government contracts set aside for small, disadvantaged businesses with the understanding that the business would illegally subcontract all of the work on the projects to WGESystems.  In this way, WGESystems was able to capture a total of eight contracts worth $17,711,405 that should have gone to an eligible company. These contracts, awarded in 2010, were focused on making federal buildings in the Washington, D.C., area more energy efficient.

Under the illegal agreement, the company that was awarded these government contracts was allowed to keep 5.8 percent of the value of the contracts for allowing WGESystems to use the company’s small business status to win these contracts.

“Conspiracies to violate federal procurement laws will not be tolerated,” said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer for the Antitrust Division.  “Taxpayers deserve to have contracting processes that are fair and competitive, and fully comply with applicable laws and regulations.”

“Time and time again, we have seen government contractors abuse and exploit programs designed to help minority and socially disadvantaged small businesses,” said Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney Cohen.  “This Washington Gas subsidiary obtained millions of dollars in federal contracts by using a small business that had no ability to actually complete the contract as a front company.  Even though the subsidiary lost money on these contracts, it is required to pay $2.5 million in fines and penalties under this agreement.  This resolution should cause other contractors to think twice about playing fast and loose with federal contracting rules.”

“Cases like this are important for us to maintain the integrity of the federal contracting process,” said GSA Acting Inspector General Erickson.  “Companies cannot cheat to win federal contracts and expect to get away with their ill-gotten gains.”

“SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program assists eligible socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in developing and growing their businesses,” said SBA Inspector General Gustafson.  “Large businesses that fraudulently seek to gain access to contracts set aside for small businesses erode the public’s trust in this important program.  I want to thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners for their professionalism and commitment to justice in this investigation.”

“Federal government contracting laws are in place to create a level playing field for small disadvantaged businesses whose work supports our country’s diverse financial infrastructure,” said Assistant Director in Charge McCabe.  “The FBI with our law enforcement partners will investigate those companies who fraudulently abuse federal contracting laws with the purpose of increasing their company’s bottom line.”

According to the court documents, until 2010, GSA had an area-wide contract with WGESystems.  This contract enabled GSA, without competition, to enter into contracts with WGESystems so that WGESystems could provide energy management services for federal buildings.

However, starting in 2010, the federal government changed its practices.  The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act appropriated funds to make buildings in the District of Columbia and the surrounding area more energy efficient.  These funds were to be awarded through the 8(a) program, which is administered by the SBA and which was created to help small, disadvantaged businesses access the federal procurement market.

To qualify for the 8(a) program, a business must be at least 51 percent-owned and controlled by a U.S. citizen (or citizens) of good character who meet the SBA’s definition of socially and economically disadvantaged.  The firm also must be a small business (as defined by the SBA) and show a reasonable potential for success.  Participants in the 8(a) program are subject to regulatory and contractual limits on subcontracting work from 8(a) set-aside contracts.  The SBA regulations require, among other things, the 8(a) concern to agree that on construction contracts it “will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract with its own employees (not including the costs of materials).”

As a result of this change, WGESystems – which was not certified to participate in the 8(a) program – faced the prospect of losing millions of dollars in revenue.

WGESystems, along with an 8(a) company it used to obtain these contracts, and others, engaged in and executed a scheme to defraud the SBA and GSA by, among other things: concealing that WGESystems, which was not eligible for the aforementioned SBA contracting preferences, exercised impermissible control over the 8(a) company’s bidding for and performance on GSA contracts; and misrepresenting that the 8(a) company was in compliance with SBA regulations pertaining to work on these contracts, including that the company’s employees had performed the required percentage of work on these contracts.  Through these unlawful efforts, WGESystems and the 8(a) company with which it conspired obtained, at least, approximately $17,711,405 in U.S. government contracts related to work at eight different federal buildings.  When these contracts were awarded, the 8(a) company’s registered place of business was the president of the company’s home, and the company had no employees who could provide design-build or contracting services.

WGESystems assisted the 8(a) company with identifying a project manager for the work at the eight buildings who was nominally an employee of the 8(a) company, but who, in actuality, took direction from WGESystems employees.  For much of the relevant period, this project manager was the only employee of the 8(a) company performing work for any of the eight projects.

Under the agreement with WGESystems, the 8(a) company was entitled to 5.8 percent of the $17,711,405 total value of the contracts, which equals $1,027,261.  To date, with all but one of the eight contracts completed or suspended, WGESystems has lost approximately $1,122,581 on the projects.  WGESystems initially anticipated a profit margin that would have equaled about $1,560,000.

Since being informed of this investigation by the Justice Department, WGESystems has taken steps to enhance and optimize its internal controls, policies and procedures.

In light of the company’s remedial actions to date and its willingness to acknowledge responsibility for its actions, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Antitrust Division will recommend the dismissal of the Information in two years, provided WGESystems fully cooperates with, and abides by, the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement.

This investigation was conducted by the Inspector General’s Offices of the U.S. General Services Administration and the Small Business Administration and the FBI’s Washington Field Office.  The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Graves of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and Assistant Chief Craig Y. Lee and Trial Attorney Diana Kane, both of the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section.

North Florida Shipyards to Pay $1 Million to Resolve False Claims Allegations

Posted on by
North Florida Shipyards and its president, Matt Self, will pay the United States $1 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by creating a front company, Ind-Mar Services Inc., in order to be awarded Coast Guard contracts that were designated for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), the Justice Department announced today.  North Florida Shipyards has facilities in Jacksonville, Florida.

“Those who expect to do business with the government must do so fairly and honestly,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “We will not tolerate contractors who seek to profit at the expense of our veterans and taxpayers.”

To qualify as a SDVOSB on Coast Guard ship repair contracts, a company must be operated and managed by service disabled veterans and must perform at least 51 percent of the labor.  The government alleged that North Florida created Ind-Mar merely as a contracting vehicle and that North Florida performed all the work and received all the profits.  The government further alleged that if the Coast Guard and the Small Business Administration (SBA) had known that Ind-Mar was nothing but a front company, the Coast Guard would not have awarded it contracts to repair five ships.

In December 2013, the SBA suspended North Florida, Matt Self, Ind-Mar and three others from all government contracting.  In April 2014, North Florida and Matt Self entered into an administrative agreement with the SBA in which they admitted to having created and operated Ind-Mar in violation of its Coast Guard contracts and SBA statutes and regulations.

“Special programs to assist service disabled veterans are an important part of the SBA’s business development initiative,” said U.S. Attorney A. Lee Bentley III for the Middle District of Florida.  “False claims such as this undermine the integrity of this vital program and, where found, will be vigorously pursued by our Office.”

“This settlement sends a strong message to those driven by greed to fraudulently obtain access to contracting opportunities set-aside for deserving small businesses owned and operated by service disabled veterans,” said Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson for the SBA.  “We are committed to helping ensure that only eligible service disabled veteran owned small businesses benefit from that SBA program.”

The settlement resolves allegations originally filed in a lawsuit by Robert Hallstein and Earle Yerger under the qui tam, or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery.  The act also allows the government to intervene and take over the action, as it did in this case.  Hallstein and Yerger will receive $180,000.

The investigation was a coordinated effort by the Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, the Department of Homeland Security’s-Office of Inspector General and the SBA Office of Inspector General.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, except to the extent that North Florida and Matt Self have admitted to the conduct in their agreement with the SBA.

The case is captioned United States ex rel. Yerger, et al, v. North Florida Shipyards, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-464J-32 MCR (M.D. Fla.).

US Files Suit Against Canton, Ohio-based Tab Construction and Its Owner for Allegedly Defrauding the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program

Posted on by
The government has filed a complaint against Canton, Ohio-based TAB Construction Co. Inc. (TAB) and its owner, William E. Richardson III, for allegedly making false statements to the Small Business Administration (SBA) to obtain certification as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) company, the Justice Department announced today.

 “The HUBZone program is intended to create jobs in areas that historically have had trouble attracting business,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery.  “The Justice Department will take strong enforcement action when companies obtain contracts to which they are not entitled.”

The government alleges that TAB used its fraudulently procured HUBZone certification to obtain four U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction contracts worth millions of dollars.  Each of those contracts had been set aside for qualified HUBZone companies.  The government’s complaint asserts claims against TAB and Richardson under the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.

Allegedly, Richardson originally applied to the HUBZone program in 2000 by claiming that TAB’s principal office was located in a designated HUBZone when no TAB employees worked out of the HUBZone office, and TAB actually was located in a non-HUBZone.  Even though Richardson told the SBA that TAB was located in a HUBZone, Richardson consistently used his non-HUBZone address in conducting TAB’s other business affairs, at one point even stating under oath in private litigation that TAB’s office was located in a non-HUBZone.  In 2006, Richardson allegedly applied for re-certification to the HUBZone program, again falsely stating that eight employees worked in the designated HUBZone.  The government alleges that just six weeks after Richardson re-certified its eligibility with the SBA, TAB completed an affidavit in an unrelated matter, which stated that TAB’s principal office was located in a non-HUBZone.

Under the HUBZone program, companies that maintain their principal office in a designated HUBZone, and meet certain other requirements, can apply to the SBA for certification as a HUBZone small business company.  HUBZone companies can then use this certification when bidding on government contracts.  In certain cases, government agencies will restrict competition for a contract to HUBZone-certified companies.

“We will not tolerate fraud in the HUBZone or any other SBA program,” said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson.  “With our interagency partners, this office will continue to pursue those who defraud the government by lying to gain access to federal set-aside contracts.”

“SBA’s contracting programs, including the HUBZone program, provide small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs,” said SBA General Counsel Sara D. Lipscomb.  “SBA has no tolerance for waste, fraud or abuse in any government contracting program and is committed to working with our federal partners to ensure the benefits of these programs flow to the intended recipients.”

The government filed its complaint in two consolidated lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act.  Under the Act, a private citizen can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.  The government also is entitled to intervene in the lawsuit, as it has done in this case.

This matter was handled by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in conjunction with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

The consolidated civil cases are U.S. ex rel. Roy. J. Fairbrother Jr. and Louis Petit v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., et al., No. 5:11-cv-1432 (N.D. Ohio) and U.S. ex rel. Patricia Hopson and Vince Pavkov v. TAB Construction Co. Inc., No. 5:12-cv-135 (N.D. Ohio).  The claims asserted against TAB and Richardson are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Former Security Contractor CEO Sentenced for Masterminding $31 Million Disadvantaged Small Business Fraud Scheme

Posted on by
The former chief executive officer of a Virginia-based security contracting firm was sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia to 72 months in prison for creating a front company to obtain more than $31 million intended for disadvantaged small businesses and for bribing the former regional director for the National Capital Region of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) as part of the scheme. The front company obtained the contracts through the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) program, which allows qualified small businesses to receive sole-source and competitive-bid contracts set aside for minority-owned and disadvantaged small businesses.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the Eastern District of Virginia; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Inspector General Paul K. Martin; SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson; Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) Special Agent in Charge of Mid-Atlantic Field Office Robert E. Craig; General Services Administration (GSA) Inspector General Brian D. Miller; and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Inspector General Charles K. Edwards made the announcement after sentencing by United States District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.

“Keith Hedman used his expertise gleaned from decades as a government contractor to cheat the system and steal tens of millions from minority-owned small business owners,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman. “Today’s sentence shows that those who resort to deceit and bribery to secure federal contracts will be caught and held accountable.”

“Keith Hedman tried to game the system and take advantage of a government program designed to help minority-owned small businesses,” said U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride.  “He committed fraud, he undermined the trust of the U.S. government and this type of conduct will not be tolerated.  My office is committed to prosecuting those who cheat the government to the fullest extent of the law.”    “I commend the outstanding efforts of our agents and the other law enforcement agencies involved in this case in protecting the integrity of the Federal Government’s procurement program and taxpayer dollars” said NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin.

Keith Hedman, 53, of Arlington, Va., was sentenced today after pleading guilty to major government fraud and conspiracy to commit bribery on March 13, 2013. Hedman was also ordered to forfeit approximately $6.1 million.

According to court documents, in or about 2011 Hedman formed Company A, which was approved to participate in the 8(a) program based on the 8(a) eligibility of its listed president and CEO, an African-American female. When the listed president and CEO left Company A in 2003, Hedman became its sole owner, and the company was no longer 8(a)-eligible.

In 2003, Hedman created Company B, another Arlington-based security contractor, to ensure that he could continue to gain access to 8(a) contracting preferences for which Company A was no longer qualified. Prior to applying for Company B’s 8(a) status, Hedman selected an employee, Dawn Hamilton, 48, of Brownsville, Md., to serve as a figurehead owner based on her Portuguese heritage and history of social disadvantage. In reality, the new company was managed by Hedman and Company A senior leadership in violation of 8(a) rules and regulations. To deceive the SBA, the co-conspirators falsely claimed that Hamilton formed and founded the company and that she was the only member of the company’s management. Based on those misrepresentations, Company B obtained 8(a) status in 2004.

From 2004 through February 2012, Hedman – not Hamilton – impermissibly exercised ultimate decision-making authority and control over Company B by directing its finances, allocation of personnel, and government contracting activities.  Hedman nonetheless maintained the impression that Hamilton was leading the company, including through forgeries of signatures of Hamilton to documents she had not seen or drafted. Hedman also retained ultimate control over the shell business’s bank accounts throughout its existence.  In 2010, Hedman withdrew $1 million in cash from Company B’s accounts and gave the funds in cash to Hamilton and three other conspirators. In 2011, Hedman approached Hamilton’s brother about starting another shell company to continue the scheme.  The trio submitted another fraudulent application to the SBA, but it was rejected.

Later in 2011, Hedman agreed to pay Derek Matthews, 47, of Harwood, Md., the former FPS Regional Director for the National Capital Region, $50,000 and a percentage of new business in exchange for Matthews helping Company B obtain contracts.  During the bribery scheme, Matthews served as FPS Deputy Assistant Director for Operations, a law enforcement position in which he had daily oversight of physical security programs and oversight of approximately 13,000 FPS officers at approximately 9,000 federal buildings.

In total, the scheme netted government contracts valued at more than $153 million, from which Company B obtained more than $31 million in contract payments. The various conspirators netted more than $6.1 million that they were not entitled to receive from those payments. Seven other defendants have pleaded guilty in the scheme.

This case is being investigated by NASA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the SBA -OIG, DCIS-OIG, GSA-OIG, and DHS-OIG, with assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Chad Golder and Ryan Faulconer, a former Trial Attorney for the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, are prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.

Former Security Contractor Executives Sentenced for Illegally Obtaining More Than $31 Million Intended for Disadvantaged Small Businesses

Posted on by
Two executives at a Virginia-based security contracting firm were sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia for their roles in using a front company to obtain more than $31 million intended for disadvantaged small businesses as part of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) program. This program allows qualified small businesses to receive sole-source and competitive-bid contracts set aside for minority-owned and disadvantaged small businesses.

 Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the Eastern District of Virginia; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Inspector General Paul K. Martin; SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson; Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) Special Agent in Charge of Mid-Atlantic Field Office Robert E. Craig; General Services Administration (GSA) Inspector General Brian D. Miller; and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Inspector General Charles K. Edwards made the announcement after sentencing by United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

Joseph Richards, 52, of Arlington, Va., and David Lux, 66, of Springfield, Va., were sentenced today to 27 and 15 months in prison, respectively, after pleading guilty in March 2013 to conspiracy to commit major government fraud. Both men were ordered to complete community service as part of their supervised release following their prison terms. Richards was ordered to pay $120,378 in restitution, and Lux was ordered to forfeit $115,556.

According to court documents, Richards and Lux were executives at an Arlington-based security contracting firm referred to as Company A in court records. In approximately 2001, Keith Hedman, 53, of Arlington, formed Company A, which was approved to participate in the 8(a) program based on the 8(a) eligibility of its listed president and CEO, an African-American female. When the listed president and CEO left Company A in 2003, Hedman became its sole owner, and the company was no longer 8(a)-eligible.

In 2003, Hedman created Company B, another Arlington-based security contractor, to ensure that he could continue to gain access to 8(a) contracting preferences for which Company A was no longer qualified. Prior to applying for Company B’s 8(a) status, Hedman selected an employee, Dawn Hamilton, 48, of Brownsville, Md., to serve as a figurehead owner based on her Portuguese heritage and history of social disadvantage. In reality, the new company was managed by Hedman and Company A senior leadership in violation of 8(a) rules and regulations. To deceive the SBA, the co-conspirators falsely claimed that Hamilton formed and founded the company and that she was the only member of the company’s management. Based on those misrepresentations, Company B obtained 8(a) status in 2004. From 2004 through February 2012, Hedman – not Hamilton – impermissibly exercised ultimate decision-making authority and control over Company B by directing its finances, allocation of personnel, and government contracting activities.

Richards and Lux joined the scheme in 2005 and 2008, respectively. Hedman offered Richards and Lux ownership stakes in Company B in exchange for their assistance in misleading the SBA and other U.S. government agencies, and both men accepted. Once they joined the conspiracy, Richards and Lux took a variety of actions to further the fraud against the United States. In 2008, for example, both Richards and Lux helped Company B overcome a protest by another company that accused Company A and Company B of improperly obtaining a $48 million Coast Guard contract.

From 2008 to 2010, Richards moved to Company B’s payroll to help Hedman illegally operate Company B. In 2010, Lux helped Hedman withdraw more than $1 million in cash from Company B’s accounts, which Hedman then disbursed to various conspirators, including $100,000 in cash to both Richards and Lux. Richards and Lux also assisted Hedman, Hamilton, and other co-conspirators prepare false documents, including annual reviews, to submit to SBA and other government agencies.

In total, the scheme netted government contracts valued at more than $153 million, from which Company B obtained more than $31 million in contract payments. The various conspirators netted more than $6.1 million that they were not entitled to receive from those payments.

Six other defendants have pleaded guilty in the scheme:

• Hedman is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on June 21, 2013. • Hamilton is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on June 28, 2013. • David Sanborn, 60, of Lexington, S.C., Company A’s former president, is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S District Judge Claude M. Hilton on July 19, 2013. • John Hertogs, 42, of Winter Springs, Fl., Company B’s former director of operations, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Hilton on July 12, 2013, for submitting a fraudulent 8(a) application for a follow-on company that Hedman and Hamilton intended to use once Company B graduated from the 8(a) program. • Derek Matthews, 47, of Harwood, Md., former Regional Director for the National Capital Region of the Federal Protective Service, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Brinkema on July 19, 2013, for a related bribery scheme in which Hedman agreed to pay Matthews $50,000 and a percentage of new business in exchange for Matthews helping Company B obtain contracts. • Michael Dunkel, 59, of Merritt Island, Fl., is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Lee on Oct. 4, 2013, for obtaining more than $4.4 million in payments by using Company B as a pass-through company on NASA contracts.

This case is being investigated by NASA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the SBA -OIG, DCIS-OIG, GSA-OIG, and DHS-OIG, with assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Chad Golder and Ryan Faulconer, a former Trial Attorney for the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, are prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.