Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program
Preliminary Information on Actions Taken by Agencies to Address Fraud and Abuse and Remaining Vulnerabilities Gao ID: GAO-11-589T July 28, 2011In Process
SBA and VA have taken a number of positive actions in response to prior GAO findings and recommendations concerning the SDVOSB program, but the program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse. For example, SBA requested all 10 previously identified case-study firms to change their SDVOSB status in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) to show they are not eligible for SDVOSB contracts, and VA rejected 7 of the 10 firms from participation in its VetBiz program. However, as of July 2011, two of the firms rejected by VA continued to self-certify themselves as an SDVOSB in CCR which allows the firms to compete for governmentwide SDVOSB contracts. The fact that some firms continue to list themselves as SDVOSB firms in CCR despite VA finding them ineligible exposes the gaps that still exist in SDVOSB program fraud-prevention controls across the government. Agencies have also taken some actions to suspend some of the case-study firms. For example, SBA suspended four companies and three individuals associated with 2 of the 10 case-studies, making them ineligible for further contracts with the federal government. In an effort to minimize the potential for fraud in the SDVOSB program, GAO made recommendations to SBA and VA concerning overall SDVOSB program improvements. In response to prior recommendations, SBA, VA, and other agencies have met to coordinate improvements. VA is also developing procedures to refer firms that knowingly misrepresent their status as an SDVOSB for debarment or suspension. GAO also suggested that Congress consider providing VA with additional authority and resources to expand its SDVOSB verification process governmentwide. There is currently a Senate bill that addresses this matter. SBA and VA concurred with GAO's conclusion that legislative changes would be needed to expand the VA verification process. Such action would help prevent firms from obtaining contracts from the rest of the government after VA found the firm to be ineligible. GAO inquiries to IG officials revealed that 6 of the 10 firms are currently under investigation. Further details can be provided once the cases have been fully adjudicated. GAO's prior investigation found that 10 case-study firms that fraudulently or abusively misrepresented material facts related to their eligibility for the SDVOSB program had received approximately $100 million in SDVOSB sole-source and set-aside contracts, and an additional $300 million in other federal contracts. Subsequent to GAO's reporting on this, from November 2009 to March 2011, the 10 firms received more than $100 million in additional obligations on federal contracts, of which approximately $16 million in obligations were associated with SDVOSB set-aside contracts. GAO did not investigate the additional contract obligations to determine whether or not they were appropriate; however, GAO plans to review the basis for these actions and the firms' continued participation in the SDVOSB program as part of its ongoing work and will include these results in its final report.
GAO-11-589T, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program: Preliminary Information on Actions Taken by Agencies to Address Fraud and Abuse and Remaining Vulnerabilities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-589T
entitled 'Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program:
Preliminary Information on Actions Taken by Agencies to Address Fraud
and Abuse and Remaining Vulnerabilities' which was released on July
28, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, July 28, 2011:
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program:
Preliminary Information on Actions Taken by Agencies to Address Fraud
and Abuse and Remaining Vulnerabilities:
Statement of Gregory D. Kutz, Director:
Forensic Audits and Investigative Service:
GAO-11-589T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-589T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) most recently reported in
fiscal year 2010 that $10.8 billion of federal contracts were awarded
to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB). SBA‘s
report also showed that, of this amount, $3.2 billion was for
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contracts. In 2009 and 2010, GAO
reported on weaknesses in fraud-prevention controls that allowed 10
ineligible firms to receive millions of dollars in SDVOSB contracts.
GAO was asked to update (1) agency actions in response to prior
investigations of 10 case-study firms, the status of prior GAO
recommendations, and the status of ongoing Inspector General (IG)
investigations, and (2) the status of any new federal contract
obligations associated with the case-study firms. This testimony
provides preliminary information on GAO‘s ongoing work.
To address these objectives, GAO reviewed prior findings from audits
and investigations of the SDVOSB program, and contacted SBA, VA, and
agency IG officials for an update on actions taken in response to
GAO‘s prior recommendations and the 10 case-study firms. GAO
identified contract obligations awarded to the 10 case-study firms.
GAO did not validate representations made by agency officials or
determine whether any of the 10 case-study firms receiving contracts
subsequent to the November 2009 testimony were eligible or not. GAO
discussed information in this statement with SBA and VA officials who
generally agreed with the findings.
What GAO Found:
SBA and VA have taken a number of positive actions in response to
prior GAO findings and recommendations concerning the SDVOSB program,
but the program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse. For example,
SBA requested all 10 previously identified case-study firms to change
their SDVOSB status in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) to
show they are not eligible for SDVOSB contracts, and VA rejected 7 of
the 10 firms from participation in its VetBiz program. However, as of
July 2011, two of the firms rejected by VA continued to self-certify
themselves as an SDVOSB in CCR which allows the firms to compete for
governmentwide SDVOSB contracts. The fact that some firms continue to
list themselves as SDVOSB firms in CCR despite VA finding them
ineligible exposes the gaps that still exist in SDVOSB program fraud-
prevention controls across the government. Agencies have also taken
some actions to suspend some of the case-study firms. For example, SBA
suspended four companies and three individuals associated with 2 of
the 10 case-studies, making them ineligible for further contracts with
the federal government.
In an effort to minimize the potential for fraud in the SDVOSB
program, GAO made recommendations to SBA and VA concerning overall
SDVOSB program improvements. In response to prior recommendations,
SBA, VA, and other agencies have met to coordinate improvements. VA is
also developing procedures to refer firms that knowingly misrepresent
their status as an SDVOSB for debarment or suspension. GAO also
suggested that Congress consider providing VA with additional
authority and resources to expand its SDVOSB verification process
governmentwide. There is currently a Senate bill that addresses this
matter. SBA and VA concurred with GAO‘s conclusion that legislative
changes would be needed to expand the VA verification process. Such
action would help prevent firms from obtaining contracts from the rest
of the government after VA found the firm to be ineligible. GAO
inquiries to IG officials revealed that 6 of the 10 firms are
currently under investigation. Further details can be provided once
the cases have been fully adjudicated.
GAO‘s prior investigation found that 10 case-study firms that
fraudulently or abusively misrepresented material facts related to
their eligibility for the SDVOSB program had received approximately
$100 million in SDVOSB sole-source and set-aside contracts, and an
additional $300 million in other federal contracts. Subsequent to GAO‘
s reporting on this, from November 2009 to March 2011, the 10 firms
received more than $100 million in additional obligations on federal
contracts, of which approximately $16 million in obligations were
associated with SDVOSB set-aside contracts. GAO did not investigate
the additional contract obligations to determine whether or not they
were appropriate; however, GAO plans to review the basis for these
actions and the firms‘ continued participation in the SDVOSB program
as part of its ongoing work and will include these results in its
final report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-589T] or key
components. For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-
6722 or kutzg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Donnelly, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the results of our ongoing
audit of the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)
Procurement Program. The SDVOSB program is intended to honor the
service rendered by veterans with disabilities incurred or aggravated
in the line of duty. The program permits contracting officers to award
set-aside and sole-source contracts to small-business concerns owned
and controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) stated in its most recent report that,
in fiscal year 2010, $10.8 billion in federal contracts[Footnote 1]
were awarded to firms that self-certified themselves in the Central
Contractor Registration (CCR)[Footnote 2] as SDVOSBs. Self-
certification as an SDVOSB in CCR allows firms to bid on SDVOSB sole-
source and set-aside contracts across the government. The Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) SDVOSB contracts accounted for $3.2 billion
or approximately 30 percent of governmentwide SDVOSB contracts during
fiscal year 2010. In 2011 more than 15,500 firms were listed in CCR
that self-certified themselves as SDVOSBs and approximately 5,500
firms were listed as verified by VA as SDVOSBs in VA's online database
called the VetBiz Vendor Information Pages (VetBiz).
In 2009 and 2010, we reported on weaknesses in fraud prevention-
controls that allowed ineligible firms to receive millions of dollars
in SDVOSB contracts.[Footnote 3] At that time, we found that the
governmentwide SDVOSB program was primarily a self-certification
program. VA did have specific statutory authority to implement a
SDVOSB verification program,[Footnote 4] but that authority was
limited to contracts awarded by VA. During our previous work, we found
that SBA was not obligated to institute any type of fraud prevention
controls within the SDVOSB program. SBA was not verifying the
eligibility of firms claiming to be SDVOSBs, and did not have a
process in place to access the VA service-disabled veteran's database
listing individuals that are valid service-disabled veterans. Unlike
other small-business contracting programs, such as the HUBZone and
8(a) programs,[Footnote 5] there were no document submission
requirements for the SDVOSB program used to substantiate eligibility,
and no application process associated with the SDVOSB program. The
only process in place to detect fraud in the SDVOSB program involved a
formal bid-protest process, whereby interested parties to a contract
award could protest a firm's status with SBA if they believed that a
firm misrepresented its small-business size or SDVOSB eligibility.
In addition to SBA's statutory authority over administration of the
SDVOSB program, the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information
Technology Act[Footnote 6] requires VA to institute controls for VA
SDVOSB contracts.[Footnote 7] Specifically, as of October 2010 the act
requires VA to maintain a database of SDVOSBs and Veteran-Owned Small
Businesses (VOSB) and that VA verify the eligibility of these firms.
The act requires that VA only use its set-aside and sole-source award
authority to SDVOSB firms listed in the database. At the time of our
December 2009 testimony, VA already had its database of SDVOSBs and
VOSBs--VetBiz--online and reported plans for a validation program that
would include steps such as document reviews and site visits to verify
a firm's eligibility for firms wanting to obtain SDVOSB contracts from
VA. Beyond VA, contracting officers at other agencies were not
required to validate whether a firm met eligibility requirements for
participation in the SDVOSB program prior to award.
Our prior work found that the lack of an effective governmentwide
fraud-prevention program left the SDVOSB program vulnerable to fraud
and abuse. To demonstrate the potential effect of this vulnerability,
we investigated and reported on 10 case-study firms[Footnote 8] that
in total received approximately $100 million in sole-source and set-
aside SDVOSB contracts despite being ineligible for the program. The
10 case-study firms exploited the lack of an effective governmentwide
fraud-prevention program using a variety of schemes, including several
firms setting up front companies in order to pass SDVOSB contracts to
large, sometimes multinational firms who were ineligible for the
program. Other firms received contracts even though there was not a
service-disabled veteran associated with the firm, or received
contracts even though the service-disabled veteran associated with the
firm did not manage or control the business. At the time of our work,
2 of the 10 firms had passed VA's verification process and were listed
in its system as verified SDVOSB firms. In an effort to minimize the
potential for fraud and abuse in the SDVOSB program, we recommended
that SBA and VA explore the feasibility of improving governmentwide
program controls by expanding the use of VA's VetBiz system to the
rest of the federal government. In addition, we recommended that SBA
refer cases where firms misrepresented their eligibility for the
program to the SBA Inspector General (IG) for further review and
investigation.[Footnote 9] SBA and VA generally agreed with our
recommendations.
My testimony today provides an update on actions taken by federal
agencies in response to our findings. Specifically, I will address (1)
agency actions in response to our prior investigations of 10 case-
study firms, the status of past recommendations, and the status of
ongoing IG investigations, and (2) the status of any new federal
contract obligations associated with the case-study firms.
To address our objectives, we reviewed prior findings from GAO audits
and investigations of the SDVOSB program. To provide an update on
actions taken by various federal agencies, we requested information
from SBA and VA on any actions that they have taken in response to our
recommendations and any actions taken related to the 10 case-study
firms.[Footnote 10] We did not validate representations made by SBA or
VA. We also searched the CCR to determine whether case-study firms
self-certified themselves as SDVOSB firms. In addition, we searched in
VA's VetBiz online system to determine whether case-study firms were
listed in the system as verified SDVOSB firms. Additionally, we
searched the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) to determine if any
agencies had suspended or debarred[Footnote 11] the case-study firms
or related individuals previously investigated by GAO. To provide an
update on contract obligations made to case-study firms, we extracted
any contract obligations received by the case-study firms since
November 2009 from the Federal Procurement Data System - Next
Generation (FPDS-NG). We did not investigate these contract
obligations to determine whether they were appropriate or whether the
firms were eligible at that time to receive the contracts. To assess
the reliability of the data sources, including EPLS, FPDS-NG, and
VetBiz, we interviewed agency officials and traced information to
source documents when possible. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our audit. Lastly, we
contacted agency IGs who received GAO fraud referrals pertaining to
the 10 case-study firms to learn of any action taken against the
firms. We discussed the information in this statement with SBA and VA
officials who generally agreed with our findings.
We conducted our work from February 2011 to July 2011 in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained, and the analysis conducted, provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions in this product.
VA and SBA Officials Have Taken Action in Response to GAO Reports:
SBA and VA officials have taken a number of actions in response to our
investigation of the 10 case-study firms and in response to
recommendations for program control improvements. At the time of our
previous work, all 10 case-study firms had self-certified in CCR that
they met SDVOSB eligibility criteria, and several of the firms were
also listed in VA's VetBiz database as a verified SDVOSB firm. Since
our prior work, SBA stated it has requested all 10 case-study firms to
change their status in CCR to show they are not eligible for SDVOSB
contracts. However, as of July 2011, several of the firms continued to
self-certify themselves as SDVOSBs in CCR.
VA officials stated that since our report, all 10 case-study firms
were reviewed through the VetBiz verification process and 7 of the 10
firms were rejected from VetBiz and are no longer listed in the online
database. According to VA, the other three firms were reviewed through
VA's verification process and found to be currently eligible for the
program. However, VA verification files show some of the firms made
changes to their operating practices and ownership structure in
response to our prior findings. Of the 7 firms found to be ineligible,
two firms continue to self-certify SDVOSB eligibility in CCR. The fact
that the two firms continue to list themselves as SDVOSB firms in CCR
despite VA finding them to be ineligible exposes the gaps that still
exist in SDVOSB program fraud-prevention controls across the
government. The gap in controls exists because contracting officers
for non-VA agencies are only required to check contractor self-
representations in CCR concerning a firm's SDVOSB status, and are not
required to use the VetBiz system. We have received dozens of
allegations of continuing fraud and abuse within the SDVOSB program
since our last report. We are investigating several of these cases and
will report the results at a later date.
In addition to removal of firms from online contracting databases,
officials have taken actions to suspend some of the case-study firms.
Specifically, SBA suspended four firms associated with 2 of the 10
case-studies we identified, which makes these firms ineligible from
obtaining further contracts with the federal government. In one of the
cases, SBA reported that a principal owner of a case-study firm
created a second independent SDVOSB company and defrauded the program
again. SBA suspended the new second company as well as the original
firm. In addition, SBA suspended three individuals associated with two
of the case studies. SBA also mentioned that another firm is currently
under review for suspension, and that SBA has chosen not to pursue
suspension on other cases because of what they determined to be a lack
of proof or because of ongoing IG investigations. SBA found one of the
case-study firms ineligible for the SDVOSB program through its bid-
protest process. VA officials stated that they have reviewed several
case-study firms for possible suspension and are currently working to
suspend one case-study firm.
In an effort to minimize the potential for fraud and abuse in the
SDVOSB program, we made several recommendations to SBA and VA
concerning overall SDVOSB program improvements. Specifically, we
recommended that SBA and VA work with the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) to explore the feasibility of expanding the
use of VetBiz to the rest of the government, and recommended that all
contractors who knowingly misrepresent their status as an SDVOSB be
debarred for a reasonable period of time. In addition, we suggested
Congress consider providing VA with additional authority and resources
necessary to expand its SDVOSB eligibility verification process to all
contractors seeking to bid on SDVOSB contracts governmentwide. There
is currently a Senate bill that addresses this matter.[Footnote 12] In
response to recommendations made, SBA stated it has met with VA, OFPP,
and other agency officials in an effort to coordinate on program
improvements, such as the expansion of the use of VetBiz. However,
according to SBA and VA officials, they concur with our prior
reporting that legislative changes would be needed in order for
federal agencies to change the governmentwide SDVOSB program from a
self-certification process into using VA's VetBiz verification program
for all contractors seeking to bid on SDVOSB contracts governmentwide.
VA officials also stated that an increase of resources would be needed
if VA's SDVOSB verification process expands governmentwide.
VA officials also stated that they are developing procedures to refer
firms who misrepresent their status as an SDVOSB for debarment or
suspension. However, SBA officials stated that proving a firm
willfully intended to misrepresent itself as an SDVOSB can be
difficult. In September 2010, Congress enacted the Small Business Jobs
Act of 2010, which, in part, amended the Small Business Act to
facilitate prosecution of companies that willfully seek and receive
small-business awards through misrepresentation of their small-
business status, including SDVOSB.[Footnote 13] Under the act, willful
and intentional misrepresentation can be demonstrated by showing that
a company registered on any federal electronic database in order to be
considered for award of a contract as a small business or submitted a
bid or proposal for a small business set-aside. Punishments include a
fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10
years, or both.[Footnote 14] SBA officials also told us that they are
actively reviewing each SDVOSB contract protest decision to determine
if a referral to their respective IG offices is warranted. SBA stated
that they have enhanced their bid-protest process by requiring firms
found to be ineligible to decertify their status in CCR within 30 days
or face being referred to the SBA IG. In addition, VA has developed
its own SDVOSB bid-protest process to respond to protests on specific
SDVOSB contract awards.
Upon completion of our investigation of 10 case-study firms in 2009,
we referred all 10 firms to the appropriate IG officials at various
federal agencies. In response to our referrals, several IGs have
joined forces to pursue these firms. Recent inquiries revealed 6 of
the 10 firms are currently under investigation, and face criminal or
civil penalties, or both. Further details can be provided once the
cases have been fully adjudicated.
Case-Study Firms Have Received New Contract Obligations and Additional
Obligations on Existing Contracts:
Our prior investigation found that 10 case-study firms that
fraudulently or abusively misrepresented material facts related to
their eligibility for the SDVOSB program had received approximately
$100 million in SDVOSB sole-source and set-aside contracts, and an
additional $300 million in other federal contracts. Subsequent to our
reporting on this fraud and abuse, from November 2009 to March 2011,
the firms received more than $100 million in additional obligations on
federal contracts.[Footnote 15] All 10 firms received additional
obligations since November 2009 ranging from less than $100,000 to
more than $20 million in additional obligations. Of the more than $100
million in obligations, approximately $16 million in obligations was
associated with SDVOSB set-aside contracts, of which approximately $8
million was associated with obligations on contracts that had been
awarded after November 2009. We did not investigate the additional
contract obligations to determine whether or not they were
appropriate; however, as part of our ongoing work we plan to more
fully review the basis for these actions, including the receipt of
additional obligations relative to the timing of suspensions, and the
firms' continued participation in the SDVOSB program. We will include
these results in our final report.
Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Donnelly, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For additional information about this testimony, please contact
Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this statement:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Related GAO Products:
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program: Fraud
Prevention Controls Needed to Improve Program Integrity, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-740T]. Washington, D.C.: May 24,
2010.
Department of Veterans Affairs: Agency Has Exceeded Contracting Goals
for Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, but It Faces Challenges with Its
Verification Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-458]. Washington, D.C.: May 28,
2010.
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program: Case Studies
Show Fraud and Abuse Allowed Ineligible Firms to Obtain Millions of
Dollars in Contracts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-306T]. Washington, D.C.: December
16, 2009.
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program: Case Studies
Show Fraud and Abuse Allowed Ineligible Firms to Obtain Millions of
Dollars in Contracts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-255T]. Washington, D.C.: November
19, 2009.
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program: Case Studies
Show Fraud and Abuse Allowed Ineligible Firms to Obtain Millions of
Dollars in Contracts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-108]. Washington, D.C.: October 23,
2009.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] SBA calculates its SDVOSB total by including all small-business
dollars awarded to SDVOSBs, not just those received through set-aside
or sole-source contracts.
[2] CCR is the primary registrant database for the U.S. federal
government. CCR collects, validates, stores, and disseminates data in
support of agency acquisition missions, including federal agency
contract and assistance awards.
[3] See appendix I for a list of related GAO products discussing
SDVOSB contracting.
[4] Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Act of 2006, Pub.
L. No. 109-461, 120 Stat. 3433 (2006), Veterans Small Business
Verification Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-275, 124 Stat. 2868 (2010).
[5] SBA's 8(a) program was created to help small, disadvantaged
businesses compete in the American economy. Firms must submit
documents to the SBA documenting a variety of eligibility criteria
including the owner's net worth and control of the business. The
HUBZone program was established to provide federal contracting
preferences to small businesses operating in economically distressed
communities.
[6] Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Act of 2006, Pub.
L. No. 109-461, 120 Stat. 3433 (2006).
[7] The Veterans Small Business Verification Act, Pub. L. No. 111-275,
§ 104, 124 Stat. 2864, 2867 (2010), (Pub. L. No. 111-275, Oct. 13,
2010) requires that effective October 13, 2010, no new small-business
applicant may appear in VA's SDVOSB and VOSB database unless it has
been verified as owned and controlled by a veteran or service-disabled
veteran. Additionally, VA was required to notify all unverified
businesses in its veteran-owned small-business and service-disabled
veteran-owned small-business database as of October 13, 2010, about
the need to provide supporting business documents that establish the
veteran ownership and control of the small-business. Firms were
required to do so by 90 days of receipt of the notification in order
to avoid removal of the firm from VA's database.
[8] The case-study firms include all affiliated companies and
individuals.
[9] GAO, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program: Case
Studies Show Fraud and Abuse Allowed Ineligible Firms to Obtain
Millions of Dollars in Contracts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-108] (Washington, D.C.: October 23,
2009).
[10] For our prior work, we selected cases based on a variety of
factors including facts and evidence provided in protests and
allegations, whether a firm received multiple SDVOSB contracts, and
whether a firm received other non-SDVOSB contracts. Our prior work was
not designed to identify all firms that misrepresent themselves as
SDVOSBs or commit fraudulent or abusive activity, and case examples
could not be projected to the overall population of SDVOSB firms.
[11] Suspension and debarment actions prevent companies and
individuals from participating in government contracts, subcontracts,
loans, grants and other assistance programs. The effect of suspension
and debarment by a federal agency is governmentwide. Suspensions are
temporary actions which may last up to 1 year and are effective
immediately. Debarments results in the imposition of a set period of
time decided on a case-by-case basis.
[12] Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011, S.633,
112th Cong. § 4 (2011).
[13] Pub. L. No. 111-240, § 1341, 124 Stat. 2543-44 (Sept. 27, 2010)
(codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 632(w)).
[14] 15 U.S.C. §§ 657f(d), 637(m), 645.
[15] Dollar amounts relate to federal contract obligations made to the
10 case studies from November 13, 2009 to March 4, 2011.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
