Thursday, April 3, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PAYS TO SETTLE ALLEGE FALSE CLAIMS IN PROGRAM FOR SMALL, DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, March 21, 2014
Utah Construction Company to Pay Government to Settle Alleged False Claims in Connection with Program for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses
Okland Construction Co. Inc. has agreed to pay the government $928,000 to resolve allegations that it made false statements and submitted false claims under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) Program for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses, the Justice Department announced today.
“The purpose of the 8(a) Program is to assist small and disadvantaged businesses to compete in the American economy,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Justice Department is committed to making sure that those who participate in 8(a) contracts do so honestly and fairly.”
Okland Construction, a large construction company, entered into a mentor-protégé agreement with Saiz Construction Co., a participant in the 8(a) Program. The mentor-protégé program allows a large business mentor to form an SBA-approved joint venture with a small business protégé to jointly bid on and perform 8(a) contracts, which are contracts awarded by federal agencies that are set aside solely for small businesses. Without a qualifying joint venture, the mentor and protégé cannot jointly bid on 8(a) contracts, and the mentor cannot perform the primary functions of the contract.
The government alleged that Okland Construction did not form a qualifying joint venture with Saiz Construction and thus was not eligible to jointly bid on or perform the primary functions of eight 8(a) contracts with Saiz Construction. Nevertheless, Okland Construction allegedly prepared the bids for the 8(a) contracts and its employees served as project managers, submitted invoices and performed payroll and other accounting functions. Furthermore, Okland Construction allegedly concealed its extensive involvement in performing the 8(a) contracts by misrepresenting to the government that its employees were employees of Saiz Construction.
The government also alleged that Okland Construction’s relationship with Saiz Construction violated the terms of an SBA set-aside contract awarded to Saiz Construction that required Saiz Construction to perform at least 15 percent of the labor on the contract minus the cost of materials.
“Large businesses must not be allowed to fraudulently obtain access to contracts set aside for small businesses,” said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson. “The SBA mentor-protégé program enhances the capability of 8(a) participants to compete more successfully for federal contracts through a relationship with another successful business; however, this program must not be used as a vehicle to improperly benefit large, non-disadvantaged companies.”
“SBA’s contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, provide small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs,” said SBA General Counsel Sara D. Lipscomb. “But 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 civil settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by Saiz Construction and its owner Abel Saiz under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties, known as relators, to file suit on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery. The relators filed the lawsuit after Saiz Construction terminated its mentor-protégé agreement with Okland Construction. Saiz Construction and Saiz will receive a total of $148,480.
This settlement with Okland Construction was the result of a coordinated effort among the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah, the SBA Office of Inspector General, the SBA Office of General Counsel, the Department of the Air Force and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The civil lawsuit was filed in the District of Utah and is captioned United States ex rel. Saiz Construction Co. Inc. and Abel Saiz v. Okland Construction Co. Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00362 (D. Utah). The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Utah Construction Company to Pay Government to Settle Alleged False Claims in Connection with Program for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses
Okland Construction Co. Inc. has agreed to pay the government $928,000 to resolve allegations that it made false statements and submitted false claims under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) Program for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses, the Justice Department announced today.
“The purpose of the 8(a) Program is to assist small and disadvantaged businesses to compete in the American economy,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Justice Department is committed to making sure that those who participate in 8(a) contracts do so honestly and fairly.”
Okland Construction, a large construction company, entered into a mentor-protégé agreement with Saiz Construction Co., a participant in the 8(a) Program. The mentor-protégé program allows a large business mentor to form an SBA-approved joint venture with a small business protégé to jointly bid on and perform 8(a) contracts, which are contracts awarded by federal agencies that are set aside solely for small businesses. Without a qualifying joint venture, the mentor and protégé cannot jointly bid on 8(a) contracts, and the mentor cannot perform the primary functions of the contract.
The government alleged that Okland Construction did not form a qualifying joint venture with Saiz Construction and thus was not eligible to jointly bid on or perform the primary functions of eight 8(a) contracts with Saiz Construction. Nevertheless, Okland Construction allegedly prepared the bids for the 8(a) contracts and its employees served as project managers, submitted invoices and performed payroll and other accounting functions. Furthermore, Okland Construction allegedly concealed its extensive involvement in performing the 8(a) contracts by misrepresenting to the government that its employees were employees of Saiz Construction.
The government also alleged that Okland Construction’s relationship with Saiz Construction violated the terms of an SBA set-aside contract awarded to Saiz Construction that required Saiz Construction to perform at least 15 percent of the labor on the contract minus the cost of materials.
“Large businesses must not be allowed to fraudulently obtain access to contracts set aside for small businesses,” said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson. “The SBA mentor-protégé program enhances the capability of 8(a) participants to compete more successfully for federal contracts through a relationship with another successful business; however, this program must not be used as a vehicle to improperly benefit large, non-disadvantaged companies.”
“SBA’s contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, provide small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs,” said SBA General Counsel Sara D. Lipscomb. “But 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 civil settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by Saiz Construction and its owner Abel Saiz under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties, known as relators, to file suit on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery. The relators filed the lawsuit after Saiz Construction terminated its mentor-protégé agreement with Okland Construction. Saiz Construction and Saiz will receive a total of $148,480.
This settlement with Okland Construction was the result of a coordinated effort among the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah, the SBA Office of Inspector General, the SBA Office of General Counsel, the Department of the Air Force and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The civil lawsuit was filed in the District of Utah and is captioned United States ex rel. Saiz Construction Co. Inc. and Abel Saiz v. Okland Construction Co. Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00362 (D. Utah). The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
JUSTICE SAYS COURT RULED BAZAARVOICE'S ACQUISITION OF POWERREVIEWS VIOLATES ANTITRUST LAWS
FROM: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, January 10, 2014
Justice Department Issues Statement on U.S. District Court Ruling That Bazaarvoice’s Acquisition of PowerReviews Violated Antitrust Laws
Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division made the following statement today after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that Bazaarvoice Inc. violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act by acquiring its primary rival, PowerReviews Inc:
“By acquiring its only significant rival, Bazaarvoice deprived its customers of the benefits of competition. We are pleased that the court, after carefully weighing all of the evidence, agreed with the Justice Department that Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of PowerReviews was likely to extinguish price competition and substantially diminish the pace of innovation in the market for product ratings and reviews platforms.
“As shown during trial, Bazaarvoice executives clearly intended to eliminate competition by acquiring PowerReviews. Consistent with Bazaarvoice’s own pre-merger view of the marketplace, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that PowerReviews was a significant threat to Bazaarvoice and that other rivals are poorly positioned to fill the competitive void created by the merger.
“I am proud of the excellent work done by the trial team on behalf of U.S. consumers. As today’s decision reaffirms, anticompetitive transactions that are not reported to federal agencies will not receive a free pass from antitrust scrutiny.”
Background
On Jan.10, 2013, the department filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Bazaarvoice. The department alleged that Bazaarvoice’s June 2012 acquisition of PowerReviews eliminated the company’s only significant rival, in violation of the antitrust laws.
Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of PowerReviews was not required to be reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, which requires companies to notify and provide information to the department and the Federal Trade Commission before consummating certain acquisitions. The department began its investigation shortly after the transaction closed.
The department’s trial against Bazaarvoice, which was overseen by Judge William Orrick, began on Sept. 23, 2013. The trial lasted three weeks, with closing arguments taking place on Oct. 15, 2013. The court scheduled a hearing on Jan. 22, 2014, to discuss procedures for the remedy phase of the litigation.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Justice Department Issues Statement on U.S. District Court Ruling That Bazaarvoice’s Acquisition of PowerReviews Violated Antitrust Laws
Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division made the following statement today after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that Bazaarvoice Inc. violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act by acquiring its primary rival, PowerReviews Inc:
“By acquiring its only significant rival, Bazaarvoice deprived its customers of the benefits of competition. We are pleased that the court, after carefully weighing all of the evidence, agreed with the Justice Department that Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of PowerReviews was likely to extinguish price competition and substantially diminish the pace of innovation in the market for product ratings and reviews platforms.
“As shown during trial, Bazaarvoice executives clearly intended to eliminate competition by acquiring PowerReviews. Consistent with Bazaarvoice’s own pre-merger view of the marketplace, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that PowerReviews was a significant threat to Bazaarvoice and that other rivals are poorly positioned to fill the competitive void created by the merger.
“I am proud of the excellent work done by the trial team on behalf of U.S. consumers. As today’s decision reaffirms, anticompetitive transactions that are not reported to federal agencies will not receive a free pass from antitrust scrutiny.”
Background
On Jan.10, 2013, the department filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Bazaarvoice. The department alleged that Bazaarvoice’s June 2012 acquisition of PowerReviews eliminated the company’s only significant rival, in violation of the antitrust laws.
Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of PowerReviews was not required to be reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, which requires companies to notify and provide information to the department and the Federal Trade Commission before consummating certain acquisitions. The department began its investigation shortly after the transaction closed.
The department’s trial against Bazaarvoice, which was overseen by Judge William Orrick, began on Sept. 23, 2013. The trial lasted three weeks, with closing arguments taking place on Oct. 15, 2013. The court scheduled a hearing on Jan. 22, 2014, to discuss procedures for the remedy phase of the litigation.
Friday, January 10, 2014
MSHA REPORTS MINING DEATHS HIGHER IN FOURTH QUARTER
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
MSHA releases preliminary fatality and injury data for 2013
Mining deaths sharply higher in 4th quarter, following record low fatality rates
ARLINGTON, Va. — According to preliminary data released by the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration, 42 miners died in work-related accidents at the nation's mines in 2013, an increase from the 36 miners who died in 2012. While mining fatalities occurred at a record low rate for the first three quarters of 2013, during the fourth quarter of 2013, six coal miners and nine metal/nonmetal miners died in mining accidents, a significant increase from the same period in 2012, when four coal miners and two metal/nonmetal miners died.
"Mining deaths are preventable, and those that occurred in 2013 are no exception," said Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. "While we have made a number of improvements and have been moving mine safety in the right direction, the increased number of metal/nonmetal deaths makes clear we need to do more to protect our nation's miners.
"It takes the entire mining community to continue to reach new milestones in health and safety," he added. "Miners need the reassurance that they will return home safe and healthy after every shift."
Last year, there were 20 coal mining and 22 metal/nonmetal mining fatalities, compared with 20 and 16, respectively, in 2012. Four mining deaths in 2013 involved contractors (two each in coal and metal/nonmetal), marking the fewest number of contractor deaths since MSHA began maintaining contractor data in 1983. Fourteen of the coal mining deaths occurred underground and six occurred at surface operations. In metal/nonmetal mining, five deaths occurred underground, and 17 occurred at surface operations.
The most common causes of mining accidents in 2013 involved machinery and powered haulage equipment. West Virginia had the most coal mining deaths, with six, and Kentucky had the most metal/nonmetal mining deaths, with four.
Preliminary fatality and injury rate data for the first three quarters of 2013 were .0112 and 2.45, respectively, below the rates for the same period in 2012, which marked the lowest such rates recorded in a calendar year in mining history. [Note: Rates are determined by the number of fatalities or injuries per 200,000 hours worked. Rates for calendar year 2013, which are calculated using operator-reported employment hours, are not yet available.]
For fiscal year 2013 (Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013), preliminary data indicate a record-low fatality rate of .0104 and injury rate of 2.42, as well as the fewest number of mining deaths at 33.
Main stressed that, to prevent deaths, mine operators must: maintain effective safety and health management programs that are constantly evaluated, continue find-and-fix programs to identify and eliminate mine hazards, and provide training for all mining personnel. Among the measures MSHA has undertaken to prevent mining deaths are: increasing surveillance and strategic enforcement through impact inspections at mines with troubling compliance histories; enhancing pattern of violations actions; implementing special initiatives, such as "Rules to Live By," which focuses attention on the most common causes of mining deaths; and engaging in outreach efforts with the mining community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)