U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–299 PDF 2010

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING AND 

TECHNOLOGY FIELD HEARING IN NORFOLK, VA 

ON VETERAN CONTRACTING: PREVENTING FRAUD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MAY 24, 2010 

Small Business Committee Document Number 111-069 

Available via the GPO Website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 


Congress.#13
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

DEBORAH HALVORSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Ranking Member 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICHAEL DAY, Majority Staff Director 

ADAM MINEHARDT, Deputy Staff Director 

TIM SLATTERY, Chief Counsel 

KAREN HAAS, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING AND TECHNOLOGY 

GLENN NYE, Virginia, Chairman 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

DEBORAH HALVORSON, Illinois 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Nye, Hon. Glenn ...................................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Kutz, Mr. Gregory, Managing Director, Forensics Audits and special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................. 4 

Cavolt, Ms. Janice., Owner, JBC Corp, Virginia Beach, Virginia, On behalf 

of The American Legion ....................................................................................... 6 

Walters, Ms. Cindy M., Director, Hampton Roads Procurement Assistance 

Center, Old Dominion University Business Gateway, Norfolk, VA ................. 8 

Roller, Mr. Elton, Greenland Enterprises, Inc., Hampton, VA ............................ 10 

Armbruster, Mr. George, Co-Owner, Fleet Services and Installation, LLC, 

Portsmouth, VA .................................................................................................... 12 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Kutz, Mr. Gregory, Managing Director, Forensics Audits and special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................. 31 

Cavolt, Ms. Janice., Owner, JBC Corp, Virginia Beach, Virginia, On behalf 

of The American Legion ....................................................................................... 46 

Walters, Ms. Cindy M., Director, Hampton Roads Procurement Assistance 

Center, Old Dominion University Business Gateway, Norfolk, VA ................. 49 

Roller, Mr. Elton, Greenland Enterprises, Inc., Hampton, VA ............................ 52 

Armbruster, Mr. George, Co-Owner, Fleet Services and Installation, LLC, 

Portsmouth, VA .................................................................................................... 54 

(V) 

(1) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING AND 

TECHNOLOGY FIELD HEARING IN 

NORFOLK, VA ON VETERAN CONTRACTING: 

PREVENTING FRAUD 

Monday, May 24, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at Ted 

Constant Convocation Center, 4320 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, 

Virginia, Hon. Glenn Nye [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representative Nye. 

Chairman NYE. I will now call this hearing to order. First of all, 

thank you all for joining us this morning. I appreciate you making 

your time available to us to talk about this important issue and 

sharing your insights and thoughts with us. 

This is a field hearing of the House Small Business Committee 

Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology. I want to make a 

special thanks to the Small Business Committee staff also for traveling to be with us today to address this important issue, protecting service-disabled veteran business owners from fraud. 

First and foremost, I view my role as Chairman of the Contracting Subcommittee as one that supports the economic security 

of our returning service members. As more of our men and women 

return home from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan Congress must 

adopt policies that offer them a chance to succeed as business owners. As we do so there is no better place to look for guidance than 

right here on Hampton Roads. 

I have the honor to represent Virginia’s 2nd District which is 

home to the largest concentration of veterans, military personnel, 

and military families anywhere in the country. In fact, more than 

100,000 veterans reside here in Hampton Roads. We know firsthand that out community is stronger because of the service of our 

military personnel and the contributions of our veteran community. 

The same drive and dedication that leads brave men and women 

from Hampton Roads to serve our country in uniform also leads 

many of them to take on the challenges of entrepreneurship. Like 

small businesses all across the country veteran-owned small businesses are a crucial part of our economy helping to create jobs and 

spur economic development. It is no secret why they are successful. 

Their skills and training that our veterans learn in the military 

are incredibly valuable in the private sector. 

2 

However, even our most successful entrepreneurs are hindered 

from success when fraud and abuse prohibit their businesses from 

contracting with the world’s largest consumer, the U.S. government. 

The government buys everything from paper clips to computer 

systems so if a small firm sells it, the government likely buys it. 

For many entrepreneurs working with the federal government as 

a prime or a subcontractor has been a valuable business experience 

and has helped them launch countless successful ventures. 

In fact, while much of the economy struggled over the past year 

the federal market place grew by nine percent. Last fiscal year 

alone $3 billion in federal contracts flowed to our region and $93 

million of that went to service-disabled veteran-owned businesses 

last year. 

It is more important than ever that veteran-owned businesses 

are able to access this expanding market place. Veteran-owned 

businesses are particularly well equipped to compete for these contracts. Having spent time in the military these business owners are 

often acquainted with the procurement process. Sometimes they 

have specialized skill sets that serve particular government needs. 

Veteran security clearances make them candidates for defense-related work and other sensitive projects. For all these reasons I 

have made veteran small business issues a priority. 

Earlier this year the House of Representatives passed legislation 

I authored, the Veterans Business Center Act, which will offer enhanced training and technical assistance to veterans interested in 

launching new businesses. Despite their valuable experiences in 

the military, many veterans retire without the resources to translate their skills to the challenges of starting and running a business. 

The creation of a nationwide network of veteran business centers 

will provide counseling and business training, assist veterans in accessing capital and securing loans and credit, and will help veterans navigate the procurement process to compete more effectively 

in the federal market place. 

But removing barriers and creating opportunities for veterans 

only works when these programs are run properly. Our outdated 

and under-resourced contracting policies have led to a great 

amount of fraud and outright abuse of this system. 

As many of you are aware, this past November the GAO uncovered nearly $100 million of fraud in the SDVOSB contracting program. It is disgraceful that unscrupulous businesses have been allowed to profit from taxpayer dollars intended for our veteran business owners. 

The GAO identified cases of large multi-national companies gaming the system to cheat veteran-owned businesses out of federal 

contracts. In other instances firms subcontracted all of their work 

out to large companies that are not veteran-owned and do not have 

veteran employees. I believe two problems have led us to this situation. 

One, there has been limited to no accountability in the system. 

The GAO report revealed that if someone had taken the time to 

look into these contracts, it would have been quickly realized these 

contracts were fraudulent. Two, there is no recourse and no penVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:43 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\56299.TXT DARIEN
3 

alties in place to disincentivize these abuses. If red flags are 

waived or complaints are filed, there are no consequences. The contracts and money remain in the hands of the fraudulent business 

owners. We need better policing in the contracting system. 

Rightly so Congress created a set-aside program to repay veterans by providing them an avenue to gain economic security when 

they return home from the battlefield. The businesses responsible 

for defrauding the Service-Disabled Veteran Contracting Program 

are not only defrauding the U.S. Government and the taxpayer. 

They are defrauding our veterans. They are profiting at the expense of those who are willing to sacrifice everything for our country’s prosperity. 

If we are truly sincere about our commitment to our veterans, 

then the Service-Disabled Veteran Contracting Program must be 

more than an empty promise. The goals must be clear. The rules 

must be enforced and there must be consequences for those who 

would defraud our nation’s veterans. 

I am committed to the goal of eradicating fraud in the federal 

contracting system and I have taken the first steps to fix this problem. I recently introduced the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 

Small Business Procurement Reform Act. This act will finally put 

in place punitive consequences for those who attempt to circumvent 

the law at the expense of our veterans.I intend to continue to put 

strong measures in place to ensure that the agencies which contract to veteran businesses are held accountable and that all federal veteran business programs are properly resources. 

There is another reason why this is important. In light of the 

fraud recently uncovered in the Service-Disabled Veteran Program 

it is difficult to talk about contracting goals being met because the 

data may be flawed. Even when disregarding the existence of fraud 

and abuse in the system the federal agencies have not had a favorable history of meeting their contracting goals. Agencies’ perpetual 

struggle to meet their contracting goals often results in shortfalls 

as experienced in the Service-Disabled Veterans Small Business 

Program. 

In 2008 service-disabled veteran businesses received only 1.5 percent of government contracts when they are required to receive at 

least 3 percent. Moreover, the total number of veteran owned businesses only received 3.2 percent of government contracts. Add to 

these dismal numbers the GAO report on fraud and the ServiceDisabled Veteran Small Business Program it is clear that we must 

focus our efforts to fix unnecessary barriers in the contracting process. 

In the coming weeks the Small Business Committee will be developing legislation to overall all of the SBA’s federal contracting 

initiatives. The Contracting and Technology Subcommittee will 

take the lead in formulating that legislation and I intend to ensure 

veteran’s needs are considered throughout that process. 

Ultimately honoring our commitment to our veterans takes more 

than just saying the right words or even passing the right laws. It 

requires enforcing those laws and ensuring real accountability. 

That is what this hearing is about and that is my commitment to 

our returning service members as they make the transition from 

4 

defending our national security abroad to building our nation’s 

economy here at home. 

Now I would like to turn to our witnesses and hear their testimony today. We are going to be operating on the five-minute clock. 

You will see some lights in front of you on the table. It will start 

out green, it will turn yellow when there is a minute left, and then 

it will turn red when your time is up. We can be a little bit lenient 

with the time so if you have a few more things to say and it turns 

red, don’t panic. I will give you a little bit of extra time if you need 

it so don’t worry too much about that. We just want to make sure 

everybody has an opportunity to be heard. 

I am going to start by introducing our first witness, Mr. Kutz, 

the Managing Director of Forensics Audits & Special Investigations 

at the GAO. The FSI unit investigates waste, fraud, and abuse related to government programs. The FSI has investigated abuses of 

Hurricane Katrina relief dollars, border security, and federal contracting programs. Mr. Kutz testified before the full Small Business 

Committee recently and has some updates to share with us today. 

Mr. Kutz, thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY KUTZ 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program. 

Today’s testimony highlights the key elements necessary to prevent 

fraud and abuse in this important program. 

As you mentioned, last November I testified before the full Com- mittee on details related to 10 firms responsible for $100 million 

of fraud and abuse in this program. According to small business 

owners fraud and abuse in this program has been wide spread 

since its inception. This should not be a surprise. Multi-billion dollar self-certification programs serve as an invitation to fraudsters 

across the country to take advantage of our government. 

Let me start by saying that there is no system of controls that 

can eliminate fraud and abuse in any program. However, the monitor, and in your packet, Mr. Chairman, shows the three key elements necessary for an effective fraud prevention program. I will 

discuss these elements from left to right starting with prevention. 

Our work across the government has shown that prevention is 

the most efficient and effective way to minimize fraud and abuse. 

For this program prevention means an effective certification process to validate the eligibility of firms before they enter the program. Key components of this include ensuring that owners are, in 

fact, service-disabled veterans verifying self-reported contractor 

data against third-party sources and determining who is controlling 

and operating the firm. 

One method that we use that SBA and VA should consider is the 

unannounced site visit. These surprise visits can reveal things such 

as shell companies or who is actually controlling and operating the 

firm on a daily basis. Further, a properly managed and staff certification program should not result in a large backlog of legitimate 

firms waiting to be certified. 

Please refer back to the monitor and your slide to the second element, detection and monitoring. Here the focus should be on riskbased reviews. This should include looking at firms that have reVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:43 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\56299.TXT DARIEN
5 

ceived sole source and set-aside contracts. One key indicator of 

fraud is firms with a small number of employees and a large number of contracts. 

Firms are required to perform 15 to 50 percent of the work with 

their own employees. However, one of the firms that we investigated had only five employees, yet they received 33 service-disabled contracts across the country for over $7 million. 

Back to the monitor and the final element of an effective program is consequences for those that commit fraud and abuse in the 

program. We are encouraged that there has been activity related 

to the 10 cases that we investigated and I testified on last November. 

However, history shows that it is unlikely that anyone will be 

prosecuted for this fraud. Why? Because U.S. attorneys and agencies believe that there is no loss to the government. I happen to 

disagree with this view. I believe that when a fraudulent firm receives a contract that the entire amount of that contract is fraud. 

This fraud also robs legitimate firms not only of the opportunity to 

do the business but also the chance to hire veterans. 

Will anybody be suspended or debarred? Will anybody have their 

contract taken away that they received through fraudulent 

schemes? History shows this is highly unlikely. Until the government gets serious about making some poster children of those that 

commitment fraud and abuse in this program, then widespread 

fraud will continue. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we continue to receive numerous 

allegations of fraud and abuse in this program. We owe it to legitimate service-disabled veteran entrepreneurs to make sure that 

they get the benefits of this important program. I look forward to 

working with you and this Subcommittee, VA, SBA, and veterans 

across the country to bring integrity to this important program. 

I applaud you today, Mr. Chairman, for your support for veterans. That ends my statement and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman NYE. Thank you very much and I appreciate your 

work in uncovering this fraud and the follow-up that you’ve done 

and being with us here today. I look forward to in the question and 

answer session talking to you in a little bit more detail about your 

recommendations for how we can move forward to solve this problem so I appreciate you being here. 

Mr. KUTZ. Thank you. 

Chairman NYE. I would now like to introduce Ms. Janice Cavolt. 

Ms. Janice Cavolt is a minority owner of JBC Corp. in Virginia 

Beach. She established the business together with her husband 

Brian who is a service-disabled veteran. 

JBC Corp. provides customized medical trauma kits to members 

of the military and others. Ms. Cavolt is testifying on behalf of The 

American Legion as well, the nation’s largest veteran service organization. 

Thank you for being with us. 

[The statement of Mr. Kutz is included in the appendix.] 

6 

STATEMENT OF JANICE CAVOLT 

Ms. CAVOLT. Thank you, Chairman Nye. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am here today as a member of the National 

Small Business Task Force of the American Legion. It is an honor 

to be here under their cover. As everybody knows, the American 

Legion is the loudest voice a veteran can have on their side. If you 

do not belong, I urge you to do that now. Join. Thank you again. 

I am grateful for this opportunity to express my opinion on preventing veteran contracting fraud and I’m thankful that the government has taken notice and is proposing action to remedy the 

issues that impede the success and growth of service-disabled veteran-owned businesses. 

I am the wife of a 100 percent rated service-disabled veteran. My 

husband Brian Cavolt served as a Navy Seal and Corpsman and 

retired after 29 years active duty service. Together we own and operate JBC Corp., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business 

located in Virginia Beach, Virginia. JBC Corp. provides customized 

medical kits for members of the military which are carried and 

used in all parts of the world. 

The findings by the GAO investigation of November 2009 were 

discouraging. However, it did not come as a complete surprise to 

many veteran business owners. The tremendous competition for 

few opportunities cause SDVOSBs to work in the trenches where 

we have a peripheral view of what goes on in federal procurement. 

Awards to eligible firms who are not even having the opportunity 

to bid is one part of the problem. The other is the government’s 

blind eye that doesn’t see how poorly the contracting system is 

working and the need for an overall. 

In my opinion, the federal contracting system as it operates now 

is wasteful, inefficient, and rewards big business at the expense of 

small business, the taxpayer, and the government. It is a system 

riddled with rules and procedures to keep SDVOSBs and other 

small businesses from competing for awards often for their own 

products or within their field of expertise. 

Perhaps the dynamic that is most difficult to comprehend is that 

currently misrepresenting yourself when doing business with the 

government carries no penalty. In fact, under the federal acquisition regulations a contracting officer may allow continuation of performance if a valid contract still exist. In other words, obtaining an 

award under false pretenses does not invalidate the contract. It is 

encouraging to know that Congressman Nye is taking action to introduce legislation to address this issue and criminalize the behavior. 

During recent testimony to the Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity Joseph Sharpe from the American Legion 

offered the Legion’s opinion whereby the VA and SBA should develop a comprehensive partnership to assist veterans who are interested in participating in federal procurement with each department utilizing their resources to ensure proper implementation. 

Mr. Sharpe points out that the Center for Veteran Enterprise, a 

program of the VA, currently maintains the veteran information 

pages database. The VIP database has established itself as a premier database for veterans in the country and is the only federal 

database focusing strictly on veteran businesses. 

7 

Under this recommendation the VA, or the CVE, should maintain the database and verify accurate veteran and service-disabled 

veteran status and the SBA should retain the responsibility for 

validating the business ownership, size, standards, and structural 

integrity of the business. 

Mr. Sharpe’s statement is referenced here and I urge everyone 

in this room to read his statement in its entirety. 

I believe the ability of these two agencies to share accurate information that is accessible for verification would be the greatest step 

in addressing the problem of fraudulent representation. However, 

I believe that we must go a step further by instituting enforcement 

at the procurement level. 

Contracting officers should be required to verify the status and 

eligibility of every bidder on any set-aside solicitation. Proposals 

from those who do not qualify should be immediately removed from 

consideration. Misrepresentation should be reported to the SBA so 

that appropriate remedial action is taken. 

In summary, I believe the approach to the problem needs to be 

two-fold. First, verification and validation in accordance with the 

guidelines recommended by American Legion and, second, there 

must be enforcement at the point of entry; that is, the submission 

of the bid. 

It is important to recognize the two separate parts of this problem. To not segregate the two processes would be like asking the 

U.S. Department of State to be accountable for someone who is 

using a fake passport as identification to get through security at 

the airport. The burden should be on the party granting access, not 

the agency granting legal passports. 

In conclusion, the need to protect business opportunities for 

SDVOSBs is critical to ensure the success and growth of their businesses. Although establishing a check and balance system will 

cause an extra step to be taken by SDVOSBs it is the only way 

that set-aside solicitations can be protected. 

However, having said that, caution must be exercised when implementing the solution. It is important that the process is adapted 

to protect the service-disabled veteran contracting opportunities do 

not become obstacles that get in the way of veterans doing business. Instead, let us make it difficult for ineligible businesses to 

compete. Remember, the veterans who go through a process of validation are not the ones breaking the rules. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate this opportunity. 

Chairman NYE. Thank you for your testimony. 

I would now like to introduce Cindy Walters, the Director of the 

Hampton Roads Procurement Assistance Center at Old Dominion 

University Business Gateway. The center assist local businesses in 

establishing themselves to bid competitively on federal, state, and 

local government contracts. 

Ms. Walters, thank you for being here. We understand how challenging sometimes navigating the procurement system can be so 

we know how valuable your advice is to our local business community. I appreciate you taking the time to be with us and we are 

looking forward to hearing your testimony. 

[The statement of Ms. Cavolt is included in the appendix.] 

8 

STATEMENT OF CINDY M. WALTERS 

Ms. WALTERS. First, let me thank you, Congressman Nye, and 

the Committee for doing these investigations, having these hearings and doing things to assist our service-disabled veteran and 

veteran-owned small business community. We very much appreciate that. 

What the GAO report uncovered most importantly in its findings 

was the unacceptable and criminal behavior of those who would 

opportunistically take advantage of service-disabled veterans and 

programs legislated specifically to assist them in achieving procurement opportunities with the federal government and also in defrauding the taxpayer. 

As long as there are procurement set-aside programs whether 

they be small business, minority, 8(a), veteran, SDVOSB, HubZone, 

or woman-owned business programs with money to be gained, 

there will always be those who are determined to game the system. 

Even in the most heavily certified and managed business development procurement program, the SBA 8(a) program, there are 

still cases of fraud. We should continue to brace ourselves for interest by criminally minded persons and creating companies to gather 

money to them as each federal agency tries to increase its goals by 

billions of dollars to turn those red blocks to green blocks on the 

score card. 

I’ve been associated with these programs for the majority of my 

career in some form assisting businesses and the government to 

create compliant, successful, federal contracting industry partners. 

I work directly on an almost daily basis with veteran and servicedisabled veteran-owned small business owners. 

Their questions about government procurement, and specifically 

their ability to access acquisitions set aside for them are many and 

varied and illustrate some of the complexities that when misused 

by non-veterans and those unscrupulous people make the veteran 

and service-disabled veteran-owned small business very vulnerable. 

Eligibility issues come up frequently such as the following. ‘‘I 

have a service connected disability but have no letter from the VA.‘‘ 

‘‘I have a letter from the VA but do not own the majority of my 

company.’’ ‘‘I have another company who has the capital or past 

performance to help me to compete. Can I team with them or do 

a joint venture?’’ 

These are the scenarios in which a veteran can become caught 

up unintentionally in what may turn out to be a fraudulently executed or awarded federal contract. In these instances the veteran 

may also be the victim as well as the government. Then, on the 

other hand, we have the issue where no veteran was involved and 

the entirety of the process was set up to defraud. 

I am not a proponent of another large scale certification process 

management and policing program to add to the very full basket 

of SBA. I do, however, suggest that we could have a positive impact 

on the set-aside program for our veterans by perhaps implementing 

some of these changes I’m going to suggest either legislatively or 

culturally. 

First, those persons and firms who are not veterans and fraudulently claim to be so when preparing their certifications and reps 

for federal contracting when found to be doing so by any notificaVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:43 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\56299.TXT DARIEN
9 

tion or source should be debarred and criminally prosecuted. Most 

likely these persons have intentionally gained several other government programs such as those set aside for women, minorities, and 

may also be preying on veteran-owned businesses as well at the 

time. 

These persons and firms may not be new to federal contracting 

and may have in many cases fraudulently worked the system for 

years. For those firms where persons that certify themselves as 

service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses but, in fact, are 

just veterans, they may be referred to the appropriate agency like 

the Center for Veteran’s Enterprise for training, counseling investigation. 

In those instances we don’t want to take veterans who may have 

made a mistake and criminalize them. 

Secondly, and most important, is the federal contracting work 

force should always use its authority to request a pre-award survey 

be conducted for each service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside award. Currently a federal acquisition regulation, 

FAR Part 19.1403 the only requirement is that each of the servicedisabled veteran-owned small businesses certify themselves 

through the certs and reps to be such. We should require, and I believe it would be where the rubber meets the road, if the contracting officer would utilize their authority to request a pre-award 

survey. 

In this process they should use DCAA and DCMA as needed to 

conduct reviews of control and management documentation. That 

includes eligibility letters, organizing documents, stock ledgers, 

etc., to ensure before the award is made that the firm is owned and 

controlled by that member. 

Thirdly, recognize and respect the skills that the veteran business community has in terms of policing their own. Quite often 

times the service-disabled veteran-owned small business community will know if another company has reached out or is proposing 

on a contract and know that they are not veteran-owned or servicedisabled veteran-owned. 

If we simply have a way like a form up on the SBA site where 

a veteran can go and report what they believe that they are seeing 

happening, or a resource partner like the PTAC or the SBDC can 

go and report that, then we have a database or a place where we 

are listening to our veteran community and letting them and recognizing their skill and policing their own. 

And then fourth, and last but not least, we need to continue to 

utilize our network of federal and federally funded resources to include the acquisition workforce to continue to educate the veteran 

community on the program, the nuances of the program and the requirements of the program. 

As we bring more and more visibility to these programs by these 

types of hearings and by educating the community, the more visibility the less cases of fraud that I believe we will have. We can’t 

eradicate fraud but we can reduce the amount of instances. 

In my conclusion, thank you again for having these hearings and 

thank you for allowing me to testify. 

10 

Chairman NYE. I appreciate you being with us and look forward 

to following up on some more detail with you after we hear all the 

testimony. 

I would now like to introduce Mr. Elton Roller of Greenland Enterprises, Inc. based in Hampton, Virginia. Mr. Roller is a decorated veteran who served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 10 years. 

In 2008 he founded Greenland Enterprises which specializes in design-built mechanical and general construction projects. 

Mr. Roller, thanks again for your time this morning and we are 

looking forward to hearing your testimony. 

[The statement of Ms. Walters is included in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF ELTON ROLLER 

Mr. ROLLER. Thank you, Chairman Nye. Chairman Nye and distinguished members of this Committee, it is an honor to speak on 

behalf of veteran business owners about ways we can work together to strengthen the SDVOSB procurement program and ways 

of preventing fraud. 

As a small business owner and nine-year veteran of the U.S. Air 

Force I am proud that our federal government has found ways to 

keep veterans serving through entrepreneurial opportunities. It is 

no secret that veteran business owners share a fierce allegiance to 

fellow veterans and often extend employment opportunities ahead 

of their needs. 

In some cases positions are created and extended to candidates 

requiring significant investments and training and time. Veteran 

business owners view this as an inherent duty to those who have 

served. Simply said, veterans hire veterans. 

Procurement strategies like the SDVOSB set-asides effectively 

ensure that veteran entrepreneurs continue this culture of offering 

opportunities, hiring, training, and growing the next group of veteran business owners. Recently tough economic times and the 

promise of winning government contracts has taken those opportunities from veterans and placed them in the hands of fraudulent 

businesses. 

As most of you know, a recent GAO report sampled 10 SDVOSBs 

and found all 10 lacking the requirements to be eligible to participate in the program. This ignorance of the law and worse-case example of fraudulent activity can only be attributed to several factors including the lack of private sector opportunity, oversight of 

the program by any one agency and, most importantly, an absence 

of significant financial or criminal penalties. 

A little bit of background. After serving my country and working 

for two large HVAC manufacturers my entrepreneurial passion 

could only be satisfied by going out on my own. With the unwavering support of my family my partner and I established Greenland 

Enterprises in February of 2008. Our business became a CVE, Center for Veteran Enterprises, verified SDVOSB in July of 2008. 

From the onset we knew that any business venture comes with 

inherent risk but coupled with the worst economic decline since the 

great depression, an uncertain economic future, dwindling equity 

and personal assets, and a banking industry on hold we were specially anxious. 

11 

Fortunately for us luck, prayers, and experience prevailed as we 

were awarded several private projects in our first federal SDVOSB 

set-aside contract at the Richmond VA Medical Center in September of 2008. 

Some of the challenges we’ve experienced since then: From those 

anxious moments in 2008 Greenland Enterprises has experienced 

steady growth fueled primarily through federal procurements 

under the SDVOSB program. These opportunities have allowed us 

to establish deep roots in the local and regional market place. They 

have also allowed us to hire veterans both as employees and subcontractors and they have enabled us to give back to the veteran 

community. 

The same SDVOSB program that allows a well-managed small 

disabled veteran owned business with good core values to become 

a success story also serves as a haven for fraudulent businesses 

with poor decision making. We experienced this first hand in 2009 

when a number of commercial contracting firms flooded the 

SDVOSB program with shell companies masquerading as small 

SDVO owned and controlled businesses. 

In our particular instance evidence presented to a contracting officer at the time of award clearly established affiliation between 

the awarded SDV and a large business both having common ownership. 

Our complaint was summarily dismissed by the contracting officer and we were referred to the area SBA representative for determination of the alleged offender. The SBA agreed with our position 

but referred the matter back to the awarding contracting officer. 

We were advised that we had an opportunity to protest the 

award and ultimately take on a large business to prove what was 

already established is a clear and blatant affiliation between parties. With consideration of our financial position, uncertainty in 

getting the award and the backlash that might ensue we reluctantly declined. 

After observing other awards made to the same contractor on 

other SDV set-asides I took up the matter with the GAO and they 

referred me to the Inspector General’s Office of the departmental 

agency. To date I have not received an update on my complaint but 

did find satisfaction that the Director of Government Contracting 

with the SBA on their own accord found that same contractor to 

be other than small in a protest on an unrelated award. 

Justice was eventually served but many verified SDVs were denied opportunity through the action of this fraudulent company. 

With the lack of opportunity in the private sector more firms will 

continue to migrate to the federal sector and with that the potential for fraud will increase. Until the price for noncompliance outweighs the price of compliance, the SBA, the GAO, and lawmakers 

will continue to hear examples like this. 

We believe the tool to prevent such actions has already been established with the Center for Veteran Enterprises verification process and that the timeline for implementation, currently 2011, is not 

soon enough. With the verification process in place contracting officers can quickly confirm the legitimacy of SDV firms thus making 

the process of awards more efficient. 

12 

Protest of such awards will be reduced and the stigma of the 

GAO report and fraud in the SDV program will diminish. 

Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share the experiences of Greenland Enterprises. I would like to personally thank 

you and this Committee for your commitment to veterans and 

small business. I would also like to take the opportunity to remind 

your colleagues in Congress that small business is the lifeline of 

this country and capitalism. We must continue to foster opportunities, have an open dialogue such as this with law makers, and take 

the necessary action to put veterans and Americans back to work. 

Thank you for your time and dedicated service to our country. 

Chairman NYE. Thank you, Mr. Roller, and I appreciate your 

comments and appreciate you sharing your personal business story 

with us today. 

I would now like to introduce Mr. George Armbruster and Mr. 

Duke Ingraham, our final witnesses, co-owners of Fleet Services 

and Installation, LLC based in Portsmouth, Virginia. Mr. 

Ingraham graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and is a disabled veteran who served the U.S. Navy for five years. The company specializes in the procurement and the installation of building 

materials. 

Mr. Armbruster graduated from the Virginia Military Institute. 

Both started the firm in 2008. 

I’ll recognize you each in the order that you’re sitting here but 

I recognize you may have individual comments to make. We’ll start 

with Mr. Ingraham if you would like. 

Mr. INGRAHAM. He’s going to start. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. Mr. Armbruster will start. 

[The statement of Mr. Roller is included in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE ARMBRUSTER 

Mr. ARMBRUSTER.Congressman Nye, thank you for allowing me 

to speak on behalf of owners and members of service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses throughout the United States. This 

testimony will describe to the Committee the challenges servicedisabled veteran-owned small businesses are facing due to the lack 

of an enforceable plan and accountability for the Executive Order 

13360. 

We started Fleet Imports in 2008 and in 2009 we started bidding 

work as a subcontractor to large general contractors working on 

federal construction projects. We bid over 100 projects to larger 

GCs but to this date we have only received three subcontracts. We 

know that Executive Order 13360 a 3 percent goal is in place for 

prime contracts and subcontracts for all SDVOSBs. 

The whole process begins when a large construction project is solicited. Very large general contractors are interested in pursuing a 

project. They develop a small business plan that they feel will win 

favor of the contracting officer. These large businesses reach out to 

the small business community through Small Business Outreach 

fairs and take our information. 

Next these general contractors ask us for a price on certain 

scopes of work. They submit their proposals to the contracting officers. During the evaluation period a contracting officer looks over 

13 

the proposal and also checks to see if a proper small business plan 

was developed and a general contractor is then selected. 

At this point the general contractor finishes up their design 

drawings, the final step in buying out scopes of work or subcontracting is the next phase. This is where the problems occur. The 

general contractor will look for the absolute lowest price when buying out scopes with little to no regard to SDVOSBs. 

Once the project is completed the general contractor will have to 

explain to the contracting officer why they did not meet their goals. 

Time and time again they tell contracting officers that they gave 

it their best effort to find SDVOSBs to participate. All these practices are allowed because there is no oversight, no accountability, 

no penalties, and no program. 

We have found that if our price is not the absolute lowest bid we 

will not receive a subcontract to work on government projects. For 

example, last year we bid on a ceramic tile subcontract for a large 

federal hospital near Washington, D.C. We were recommended by 

the GC to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers decided that our price was not the absolute lowest for the ceramic tile and gave the contract to the lowest bidder. We later 

found out that our subcontract price was only 1 percent higher 

than the lowest bidder, a large business. 

The SDVOSB set-aside appears to be totally irrelevant to contracting officers and larger general contractors working on federal 

construction projects. This is because there is absolutely no oversight or accountability. As the system stands now the SDVOSB setaside program in relation to subcontracting is an honor program 

which very few honor. 

Another frustrating experience was when we tried to work for 

general contractors on foreign embassies for the U.S. State Department overseas building operations. We traveled out to Alabama to 

meet with the two largest general contractors priming the largest 

percentage of the foreign embassy projects. We were interested in 

natural stone cladding scopes of work on these projects. 

We were told by these GCs that they purchased natural stone 

materials from overseas suppliers and that they used overseas 

labor for installation of cladding. They follow these practices because of low foreign labor costs as compared to using qualified 

United States labor. Companies here in the U.S. have to follow the 

Davis Bacon Wage Scale on projects here in the United States. 

They don’t have to follow these same labor rules while working on 

foreign embassies. 

One of the general contractors working on a foreign embassy 

project told me that we would have to significantly beat their current supplier and labor cost to gain their business. After the meeting I spoke with the U.S. State Department over seas building operations representative and asked if they were required to meet 

any SDVOSB goals. The representative informed me that since the 

projects were overseas, general contractors have no goal requirements for using SDVOSBs as subcontractors. 

This is maddening when you consider that we have 25 percent 

unemployment in the United States construction field. Tax dollars 

are being used on these projects without SDVOSB participation. 

14 

Foreigners are being used to install natural stone building cladding 

on United States embassies. 

Senator John Kerry introduced legislation to advance U.S. embassies and consulate design on April 16, 2010. Senator Kerry’s legislation stated, ‘‘The legislation recognizes United States embassies 

are an important reflection of American values of openness, ingenuity, innovation and should reflect the best of the U.S. design, architecture, sustainability and technology while maintaining security as a top priority. Why are we denying our veteran-owned small 

business the opportunity to participate in the construction and security of our embassies?’’ 

To combat the multitude of problems described herein other service-disabled veteran firms that have been in the commercial business for several years have advised us to give up bidding on subcontracts. They claim we should focus on priming jobs directly to 

the federal government. 

Our problem with this advice is that we are emerging into the 

commercial market with valuable experience but still need to hone 

our skills, build a financial base and develop bonding capacity prior 

to taking on a prime contract. There are many veterans and service-disabled veterans that will be entering the job market in the 

near future. If any of these individuals decides to pursue a career 

as a entrepreneur in the construction field, they will need to gain 

financial backing, bonding, and experience before priming a federal 

job on their own. 

Subcontracting to larger general contractors on federal projects 

will give these veteran business owners opportunities to develop 

into prime contractors. Oversight and accountability is critical in 

any program. Congress needs to end the facade and support service-disabled veteran-owned entrepreneurs growing small businesses. Congress needs to require all SDVOSB firms to become certified through a program instead of self-certification to avoid fraud. 

Congress needs to require general contractors working on federal 

construction projects to provide the names of qualified SDVOSBs 

that they will be using up front. The responsible contracting officer 

should ensure that stated goals will be met before awarding any 

contract. Additionally, substantial penalties should be given on all 

awarded contracts for companies that do not meet these required 

goals. 

Congressman Nye, we greatly appreciate what you are doing for 

service-disabled veteran-owned business owners and members of 

these companies. 

[The statement of Mr. Armbruster is included in the appendix.] 

Chairman NYE. Thank you for your testimony. Actually, if you 

don’t mind, I’m going to start with you, Mr. Armbruster on the 

questions because you’ve raised some interesting topics and I wanted to follow up immediately with you on a couple of these things. 

It’s very clear to me that this is a multi-level problem that goes 

from the point of application or certification all the way through 

the contracting process with various issues with the contracting 

process. There is the fraud element which we’ve got to route out 

and attack. There is also just the question of how contracting officers are approaching these contracts. 

15 

What I wanted to ask you was specifically about your question 

about overseas contracting. Can you talk us through a little bit? 

There are some suggestions, I think, we hear that smaller firms 

just aren’t able to produce the work and get involved in the overseas contracting. Can you help us dispel some of the mythology 

there and just talk us through what the capabilities are for small 

firms who do that kind of work? 

Mr. ARMBRUSTER. Sure. Two years ago when we formed the company, Duke and I, we import granite and marble and from overseas 

currently. We approached the two largest general contractors in 

Alabama and wanted to see if we could subcontract on these foreign embassies. These guys were blatant and right in front of us 

said, ‘‘We use foreign companies because of the labor cost and the 

supply cost.’’ 

I pursued it again two years later to try and get in front of these 

guys. I don’t want to name names. I don’t know if you want me to 

name names of these two companies but we submitted bids as a 

subcontract for the cladding of these embassies and couldn’t get 

any response back from them. I finally got hold of the guys and one 

of the companies told me that they partnered with another company in Turkey. 

If we wanted our bid to even be looked at, that I needed to touch 

base with this company called Inca out of Turkey. I was just astounded at the fact that they are not using U.S. labor. They are 

not even interested in talking to us. We spent money and effort in 

putting these proposals together and we’re getting kicked under 

the bus so a Turkish company can be utilized not only to purchase 

the materials but also install the materials. 

I feel like we have a capable team to get in there and not only 

improve the quality of what’s getting done, but also improve probably the safety of it and security. We are a service-disabled veteran-owned company and we are going to approach it the proper 

way as far as getting the building put up, the exterior of the building. I feel like I have faced a brick wall with this one. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. You mentioned in your testimony you feel 

like the set-asides for service-disabled small businesses is essentially an honor program that very few honor. Tell me how do you 

feel about your reception when you talked to the primes or to the 

actual contracting officer about the rules they are supposed to be 

following. 

Mr. INGRAHAM. It’s frustrating. I mean, the majority of the companies that are service disabled the people that are doing it right 

are at a disadvantage. They have to do either 15 or 50 percent of 

the labor themselves. These shell companies make it very difficult 

for us to compete with that. It is on the honor system and it needs 

to be verified. 

Chairman NYE. What steps could be take, do you think, that 

would be the most effective in providing you the opportunity to 

compete most fairly for these contract dollars? 

Mr. ARMBRUSTER. I mean, I feel like that a system of verification 

not only for the prime contracts that GAO did that study on it and 

found out that there was 10 of them on the prime contracts that 

were fraudulent. But you figure if they are even trying to hit on 

the subcontractor it is supposed to be 3 percent service-disabled vet 

16 

goals, one, you need to find out the ones that are being awarded 

the contract or are they just a shell company, are they just asked 

for, ‘‘Hey, give me 3 percent of the contract value and you can use 

my name.’’ 

Are we competing against that? That would help. I think setting 

out specific goals for the contracting officers to say, ‘‘Hey, you have 

to set aside 3 percent of the work and verify after the contract has 

been done is the general contractor going to use service-disabled 

veteran companies.’’ Out of the 119 jobs that we bid last year, we 

have gotten three. We are constantly told that we are not the absolute lowest bidder. I have a letter here today from a company that 

says, ‘‘You have to be the lowest bidder.’’ 

It’s just not fair. We can’t compete with large business. I just lost 

a job two weeks ago to the Naval Academy to two large businesses 

and we were the lowest small business in there with a price but, 

‘‘You weren’t the ultimate lowest bidder.’’ I think a plan needs to 

be developed for the contracting officers and an enforceable plan at 

that. If there’s no penalties, these guys are going to continue doing 

the same old things in the construction field and we’re going to die 

on the vine bottom line. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Roller, I want to follow up with you on a couple of things 

you mentioned in your testimony. I’m particularly interested to 

hear in a little bit more detail about your interactions with the contracting officer who you were essentially routed back to who had 

made the decision about the original award. Can you talk to us 

about how effective or not effective it is to have that be the route 

of your complaint and what can we do to fix that? 

Mr. ROLLER. I think it comes down to individual contracting officers. In this particular case we actually sent evidence directly to 

the contracting officers. It was basically two websites that had the 

two firms who have common ownership. One was $100 million plus 

company. The other one was an SDV small business. 

On their websites they actually bragged about the affiliation between the two parties. This is a branch of this business and our 

sister company is the $100 million business. We sent that directly 

to the contracting officer which, in my opinion, was clear evidence 

that we have a direct affiliation. The word affiliation was even used 

on the website pages which is an absolute no-no. In our opinion 

that should have dismissed that bid right away. I mean, it was 

clear, it was blatant. It’s right there in black and white. 

The contracting officer went back to this company and said, 

‘‘Hey, here is what’s on the table. Produce evidence to the contrary.’’ What essentially happened was two days later both 

websites were changed for both companies and the contracting officer came back to us and said, ‘‘They appear to me to be an SDV 

business. If you would like to protest, you may certainly do so or 

you can take this up with the area SBA for size determination of 

this SDV,’’ which is what we did. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. And where did that go? 

Mr. ROLLER. After looking at the two websites the SBA said, ‘‘Absolutely this is a problem.’’ It took them several days. In the meantime the website was changed. Both of them were changed. I even 

sent another email back to the SBA to say, ‘‘Both websites have 

17 

been changed. If that is not another indictment of what is going on, 

I am not sure what else I can do here.’’ 

The SBA came back and said, ‘‘Although it looks legitimate that 

they are not a small business, we are going to refer this back to 

the contracting officer and you need to start there.’’ 

Chairman NYE. You mean they suggested they would refer it 

back to the contracting officer in the hopes that there would be 

some kind of different outcome this time? 

Mr. ROLLER. I think in the hopes that we would protest. At that 

point we could have protested but it was actually five days after 

the award. You have five days to protest it. At that point we have 

an SDV that is clearly affiliated with a large business that is $100 

million plus. We are a small business doing, you know, $2 or $3 

million a year. Financially our resources I just didn’t have it to 

pursue a contract in which we were third in place anyway. 

The alleged SDV that was a large business was No. 1. There was 

a second company and then there was us. The second company 

clearly did not want to get involved in protesting. I had a direct 

conversation with the president of that company because he did not 

want to create waves with that particular agency since he had already received a number of contracts from them. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. I just want to make sure we highlight 

what options you feel like were available to you to resolve this 

problem in terms of your being a small business. Can you describe 

what kind of a burden does that place on you to have to be the one 

to go after them? 

Mr. ROLLER. The cliche is you always hear, ‘‘For the price of a 

stamp you can protest this.’’ Sure, you can but then there are other 

steps to go through after that. Like most legitimate SDVs we’ve 

gone through a lot of financial processes here with our attorneys 

and with accountants to make sure we are legitimate and then we 

are by the book. 

Likewise, if I am going to protest something, I would reach out 

to my attorney and say, ‘‘I am getting ready to protest this thing. 

I want to make sure the language is right and I want to make sure 

I’m not doing anything wrong.’’ There is a cost associated with 

that. Those are really our options. 

Chairman NYE. Do you believe that the SBA took your complaint 

seriously and that the mechanism just doesn’t exist for follow-up or 

where was the breakdown? 

Mr. ROLLER. In my opinion, and I highlighted this in my testimony, the lack of oversight by any one agency, the SBA says it is 

the VA’s problem. The VA says it is the SBA’s problem. The GAO 

says, ‘‘Both of you have a problem.’’ Somebody has got to own it 

and somebody has got to say, ‘‘We verify SDVs and the rest of you 

can use it throughout the federal procurement community.’’ 

The buck has got to stop with somebody be it the VA or the SBA, 

one of the two. Our options in my opinion were to protest, go 

through a lengthy process. Some large businesses, as an example, 

will not protest contractor awards because they do not want to reflect badly with the contracting officer. They figure other opportunities will come up somewhere down the road with this contracting 

officer. 

18 

In looking at that as a small business when you are out there 

trying to develop relationships, you know, your first impression 

with a contracting officer you don’t want to make it as protesting 

an award. That is usually not a good start. In this case we felt like 

what we sent the contracting officer was really helping them out 

to legitimize who they are getting ready to make an award to. 

Chairman NYE. And they didn’t take advantage of that information. 

Mr. ROLLER. And they did not take advantage. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. Well, I can certainly sympathize with the 

challenges you face. I think you said quite well in your testimony 

that what has to happen is that the price for noncompliance has 

to outweigh the benefit for noncompliance and we found in many 

cases that is not what is happening right now. 

That is a good segue. I want to actually transition over to Mr. 

Kutz. I want to talk to you a little bit about some of the things we 

have learned since your report came out in November which highlighted a large degree of fraud within the service-disabled veteran 

program and just to reestablish the baseline here. Can you talk to 

us about how you collected the pool, how you narrowed it down of 

the original complaints and then what percentage and what do we 

think that means for the broader universe of potential fraud in the 

system. 

Mr. KUTZ. The pool at that time was over a hundred allegations 

we had received through our hotline and others out there who are 

in the industry. We only had time really to do 10. These are comprehensive investigations. We did surprise field visits and other 

collaboration and corroboration of information. 

At the time I testified before the full Committee back in November it was 100 plus so we did the 10. Since then we have received 

dozens and perhaps even 100 more from various veterans and others who see the same types of things happening because there still 

really is no mechanism to protect legitimate veteran firms who are 

trying to be honest and do the right thing in this program. 

That 10 is not a statistical sample. It’s not something you can 

project but still I think it is fairly representative of the types of 

things that are going on in this program as we speak. 

Chairman NYE. Whether it is statistically valid or not accurate, 

for measuring purposes it’s still a hundred percent of the ones that 

you chose to pursue of the complaints presented revealed that 

there was fraud of some kind. Is that correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. That’s correct. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. I want to talk a little bit about the slide 

that you presented to us and I think that is an interesting presentation about the various levels of protection against fraud including 

a consequence level to try to help us prevent this in the future. Can 

you just talk to us a little bit about where we are currently as opposed to where we ought to be on this chart. How big is the gap 

between those things? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, if this were a marathon we would be in the first 

several miles quite frankly. I think the only place we have seen 

any progress is at the Department of Veterans Affairs where you 

have the certification program that is still in its infancy, if you will. 

They have certified several thousand firms. Of course, two of the 

19 

10 fraud cases had been certified through that process so that is 

not encouraging necessarily. 

Hopefully they have learned from what we have shown them 

about those firms and have taken that into account. SBA is really 

no where at this point. There has been a lot of talk. They still have 

the bid protest process but in the bid protest process eight of the 

10 companies that we identified as fraud are still in the central 

contract registry as being self-certified as service-disabled veteranowned small businesses. 

When you go outside of the Veterans Affairs Department where 

they are competing for contracts they still appear to the contracting 

officers to be legitimate firms. Like I said, I think we are in the 

first several miles of a marathon and this is going to require years 

of Congressional oversight to make this important program right 

and to make sure the legitimate firms are the ones that are getting 

the work. 

Chairman NYE. What do you think the holdups are on the SBA 

system? Why is it that firms can still be revealing themselves in 

the system if they are under protest without some kind of flag? Is 

that a legal question or is that just a question of the execution of 

the program under the SBA? 

Mr. KUTZ. I think one of us mentioned it. The only thing SBA 

has going is their bid protest process. Even when they have found 

firms to be ineligible, they pretty much said to the other agencies, 

‘‘It is your issue.’’ They have not suspended or debarred anyone. 

They don’t really kick anybody out of the program because, as I 

mentioned, eight of the 10 that we found as fraud are still sitting 

in CCR as looking like legitimate service-disabled firms. 

SBA has got the bid protest thing. Now, they have said with bid 

protest they are now going to tell people they have 30 days to get 

out if they have been found to have an ineligible firm and were 

ruled against or they will be referred to the IG so they are trying 

to put a little bit more teeth in it. For the most part SBA is at the 

starting gate really. 

Chairman NYE. So the SBA essentially refers to the enforcement 

back to the contracting officer as you heard in the case of the businesses that are here today and lets them make the decision, the 

same contracting officer that made the original award, and essentially puts the onus back on that person to decide what to do. 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct. The only difference now we understand is they are referring those that don’t take themselves out of 

the system to the Inspector General at SBA and that has just happened recently, I believe. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. I did ask the Inspector General at the 

SBA in a recent Committee hearing about what actions they were 

taking and she did testify, I believe, that they were taking some 

to prosecution but couldn’t comment at the time on the details because of the process but we will be following up to find out more 

about that. 

Let us just go back to the contracting officers then because that 

seems to be where the onus is constantly returning. What did you 

find in your investigations in terms of the contracting officer’s 

awareness of the law and the problem and what methods were 

available for them to solve it? 

20 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, unfortunately, in the 10 cases they were well 

aware of what was going on. In fact, they helped facilitate what 

was going on in some of these cases. They would find a large company they wanted to do the work. They would help facilitate the 

front company in some of these cases so they new exactly what was 

going on so they not only were not there to prevent what was going 

on, they were facilitating it. 

I don’t think they were always involved in fraud necessarily. 

They were looking to get those requirements you mentioned in your 

opening statement that are so important to them that they get the 

work out and they can score it as a small business. That means 

that the reports you are getting back are saying that a certain 

amount of small business work is being done but really there are 

large international companies. 

I mentioned the one at the hearing last November. It was a company from Copenhagen, Denmark doing the janitorial services work 

at a VA hospital in Palo Alto, California. It was an outrageous case 

and that would have been shown to you members of Congress as 

a successful small business service-disabled contract. 

Chairman NYE. Can you see any elements of effective fraud prevention that are coming online soon that will be helpful in moving 

us towards the goal that you laid out in your slide? 

Mr. KUTZ. Certainly at VA they are moving forward with their 

certification process. There have been several thousand firms certified but I understand there are many thousands more waiting in 

the queue so the other unintended consequence here of the certification program are potentially legitimate firms sitting in the queue 

waiting to be certified for a year or more. Now what we have is a 

negative consequence of trying to do the right thing here with the 

certification program. It is just an under-funded program over at 

the VA. 

They don’t have enough resources into this. They have done very 

few site visits so they are still doing a paper shuffle to a large extent and I’m not sure they are getting the right results in all cases 

but that is the only place we’ve seen significant progress. Part of 

that was because they were mandated by law to do it. Otherwise 

there was nothing there. Really the hearing you had last November 

spurred them to really kick-start this into action. 

Chairman NYE. Let me follow up on the question about the backlog and how much of an impetus that is for folks that want to get 

involved. 

Ms. Walters, can you comment on your experience dealing with 

disabled-veteran business owners trying to get into the process, or 

generally with the broader small business community, the backlog 

now in terms of certification is that creating a significant problem 

as far as you have seen? 

Ms. WALTERS. Well, as you had indicated, the only certification 

process now is with the VA. It is very backlogged. I think if you 

look at SBAs basket of management and policing activities, historically if you looked at things like HubZone now created after we 

looked at that having to go out and do site visits. There just are 

not enough resources, I believe, for SBA to actually pull off by 

themselves another certification program for the VA. 

21 

I believe you are correct somewhere a thousand of these certifications have been done. We are starting to see as more and more 

veterans are asking to be certified by VA it is becoming more and 

more backlogged. I mean, we are looking at potentially 90 days, 

120 days. As you put the onus then on the folks who are trying to 

do the right thing, they are losing opportunities. 

Then you add the additional variables and getting back—and I 

kind of want to move back to that a little bit and I’m sorry—getting 

back to the contracting officers and where they are looking and the 

CCR registration. The only requirement that they have is that a 

service-disabled veteran-owned small business certify themselves to 

the contracting officer that they are that. 

In effect, if they are going to look at CCR and they are looking 

at the certs and reps and they have done that, the contracting officer then by law is only required to accept that. I think that one 

of the areas that we really need to push back on is the area where 

the contracts are being let at the contracting officer’s point. If we 

can actually do a better job of legislating more requirements for the 

contracting officer to have to do before these things get awarded, 

we may be able then to curtail trying to strategize more policing 

of these things after they happen. 

I think, like you said, the certification process like any certification process, the HubZone, the 8(a), it just gets further and further and further backlogged and it becomes frustrating for veterans 

to have to go through certifications when they are trying to do the 

right thing. 

Chairman NYE. I want to follow up on something you said during 

your testimony about not favoring too many policing functions at 

the SBA that could tend to slow down the process. I just want to 

make sure I understand what you mean about trying to find the 

right balance between putting more onus on the SBA in terms of 

their enforcement and getting back to the contracting officer and 

force to do the job of ensuring that the contract recipients actually 

quality. How do we strike the right balance there? 

Ms. WALTERS. Well, I think if we look historically on the setaside programs that SBA has in their basket where they are trying 

to do the policing, if you look specifically in the small business setaside program, you will see that I would say nine times out of 10 

the only time that we have an issue where a small business setaside has been given inadvertently to a non-small business is when 

another business protested. It is not when we are looking at trying 

to police it. 

I don’t think that the SBA has enough resources in enough 

places to put boots on the ground to do physical site inspections of 

HubZone certifications of now a potentially additional service-disabled veteran and small business certification. 

I don’t think that is where we need to keep pushing on that side 

of the basket when in my opinion where the contract is let at the 

contracting officer who has a tremendous amount of authority and 

judgment to award a contract. They have at their disposal DCAA 

and DCMA to do some of these surveys before they let it go out 

of the door. I think if we push more down into that area, maybe 

then we can begin to strike a balance and we just saw it in this 

instance. 

22 

I don’t think only having the contracting officer look at a self-certification and say, ‘‘That is enough for me. I am going to award the 

contract.’’ And then when it gets out the door somebody else can 

police it. Somebody else can worry about it. Veterans are losing opportunities. Okay. And then all of a sudden months later somehow 

it makes a circle back to the contracting officer I don’t think is the 

appropriate balance. 

Chairman NYE. You mentioned that in some cases there is unintentional fraud involving a veteran who is making best efforts to 

meet the rules. Can you offer some examples of that and how big 

of an issue is that? 

Ms. WALTERS. Absolutely. I have actually had clients—well, first, 

I can tell you I have large businesses that call me. Some of the 

things that people will say to you is absolutely astounding. I have 

large businesses that will call me and say, ‘‘I want to do so and so 

and so and so but I can’t. I need a service-disabled vet-owned business. Can you hook me up with somebody?’’ 

I have constantly had clients coming and sitting down in my office, service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, two-men and fivemen size businesses, small shops, who say, ‘‘I have been working 

with another company.’’ Or, ‘‘I had this company call me, a large 

small business call me, and they want to do a teaming agreement 

with me so I went ahead and did a teaming agreement with them.’’ 

Or, ‘‘I went ahead and started the process of doing a joint venture without a lawyer, without any assistance from anybody because they said they can bring onboard and help me with my capital. They can help me with past performance. All I have to do is 

go out and find some service-disabled veteran-owned small setasides to get involved in.’’ I say, ‘‘Can you bring me the documents 

that you signed? What did you do?’’ 

When I take a look at this stuff, I realize that they have been 

captured exclusively in some agreements that then allow the execution of fraudulent contracts to them that now 85 or 90 percent of 

the work is really owned by these other companies. That is actually, I think, more frequently happening than people realize. I see 

a lot of people coming in the door after they have gotten caught up 

in something. 

Chairman NYE. So, in that case, the veteran-owned business may 

be unaware of the problem but there is a business involved in the 

transaction that knows what it is doing. 

Ms. WALTERS. Yes. That is when I talk about these are companies that probably have gamed the system along the way. They 

have done this with other companies. They have done it with minority-owned companies, women-owned companies, wherever they 

can find the ability to get a piece of the pie that they can’t get elsewhere. 

Now there really are because we do have a focus on increasing 

the goals for service-disabled veteran-owned businesses and getting 

closer to the goal. There is more and more money going there. They 

are now preying on service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. 

Chairman NYE. I see what you mean. Do you have contact 

through the course of your work with contracting officers themselves? 

23 

Ms. WALTERS. Absolutely. I talk to contracting officers quite extensively. 

Chairman NYE. And can you describe your feeling about their 

level of knowledge and involvement in the problem areas here? 

Ms. WALTERS. I think from the ones that I’ve talked to they realize that there is a problem but for a contracting officer the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations are the Bible. They go back to the FAR 

and what the FAR states is a self-certifying process. I have had instances where I have advocated to them that they utilize a preaward survey. 

I have advocated to them that they listen to folks like Mr. Roller 

when they come and say, by any means, whether it is a phone call, 

a letter, regardless of what time in the process it is, whether it is 

the proposal process or months or years after an award is made, 

if a veteran comes to you and says, ‘‘I have a problem and I do not 

believe that this other company is a service-disabled veteran-owned 

business,’’ they should act immediately as any of us who are in any 

type of a federally-funded type of program. We should take that information and really, really investigate it. 

Chairman NYE. Let me ask you generally where on the scale of 

challenges does this kind of thing fall for you and the veteranowned small businesses that you work with and what are the 

greatest challenges that they present to you in terms of asking for 

your assistance? 

Ms. Cavolt, I am going to ask you the same question after Ms. 

Walters answers. 

Ms. WALTERS. I think their greatest challenge, the most questions that I get from them are first off—well, second off, how do 

I access the procurement system and how do I prepare a good proposal. First off is, ‘‘How do I make myself a legitimate service-disabled veteran-owned small business to do federal contracting legitimately?’’ ‘‘ 

How do I engage with other businesses legitimately to make sure 

that when we go out and we try and garner a set-aside for us that 

we have done it in a legitimate way?’’ 

Then, thirdly, I get many that come to me after something has 

already happened. ‘‘How do I get out of this joint venture or this 

teaming agreement or this thing that I have done with myself and 

my business that now appears eight months down the road that we 

have done something we shouldn’t have done?’’ Or, ‘‘They are mistreating me or not giving me the scope of work that they agreed 

to in a subcontract so that I can meet a subcontracting goal for 

them.’’ I think those are the most of the challenges. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Cavolt, will you talk about your experience dealing with veteran small businesses, what their great challenges are, and what 

is your experience in this area. 

Ms. CAVOLT. We have had kind of a dual challenge there. One 

is we are manufacturers. We make very specialized products as you 

are aware. As I had said earlier, we make medical products for the 

military. The military members come to us and they say, ‘‘This is 

what we need.’’ It is life-saving materials and they say, ‘‘This is 

what we need.’’ We say, ‘‘How do you want to carry it?’’ 

24 

We design the bag. It is a very long process. We had one that 

took a couple of years to actually develop. You know, what happens, and this is a comment on contracting, but at ECC here in 

Norfolk they want our item. We are in Virginia Beach. We can provide it. They actually will ask us for a bid. We give a bid and it 

goes to the contract office. The contract office puts it out and goes 

to a company in Florida. It goes somewhere to a business that 

doesn’t even do what we do and we end up going through them and 

it is the only way we can get our products out there. 

First of all, it is costing the government anywhere from 30 to 40 

percent on top of what we charge so it is a pretty expensive administrative fee. We have asked the contracting officers, ‘‘Can you set 

it aside? Can you do a set-aside?’’ They will say, ‘‘Well, we don’t 

know if we can get a couple service-disabled veterans in this area.’’ 

Chairman NYE. Is that right? 

Ms. CAVOLT. You know, come on. As you know, we are the largest concentration of retirees of veterans. Just getting the contracting officer to even look at the idea of doing SDVOSBs. We do 

have a company here in town who if a contract comes up they have 

their avenues. They can pull an 8(a). They can pull a women-owned 

business. They can pull SDVs. 

I mean, as an example, I saw some of our products on eMall 

which is a way that the government can purchase products and I 

saw ours. I didn’t know who this company was. I also noticed that 

they were marked up about 40 percent but they were over the 

micro-threshold which is the $3,000 limit so they are making the 

sales. The bag is coming from us. It is costing the government a 

lot. We are not getting the past performance so we are still back 

at square one. 

There is a great reluctance of contracting officers. First of all, I 

get the attitude that, ‘‘Yeah, we will do it,’’ but then the next thing 

you know it has been awarded to someone outside other than a 

service-disabled veteran-owned small business. 

Interestingly I have done a little research in the FARs and the 

requirement is that two businesses, two service-disabled veteranowned small businesses, need to bid on a contract for a set-aside. 

If only one actually returns a bid, they are required to award that 

bid to the one offer. So, you know, it gets dismissed all the time. 

You are familiar with some of the experiences that I have had 

just outside of this hearing and I always come back to contracting. 

There is a micro-threshold of $3,000 so they are trying to handle 

everything from $3,000 to $50 million in contracting. They are likely to throw a lot of things, you know, the fastest way that they can 

manage it. 

Like you said, they want to hit their scores so they are just opening the book, ‘‘Okay, let us pick that one.’’ You know, as Mr. Roller 

said, he didn’t have the resources. I am sure that included time as 

well. As a small business you are working 24/7 it seems and that 

is just to keep things moving so it is difficult. 

Just one other thing I would like to mention is sometimes when 

you do go up against large businesses, you mentioned about being 

concerned about getting blackballed, so to speak, within a contract 

office. We have had these large businesses come after us legally 

25 

and try to sue us for some trumped-up idea and we always get it 

thrown—you know, it doesn’t get very far but it is intimidation. 

Chairman NYE. Ms. Walters, can you comment on your feelings 

on that? We are in a very heavy military area. We have a lot of 

military contracting officers in this area that are contracting out 

work on a day-to-day basis. Can you talk a little bit about your 

work with those contracting officers and how you feel they approach local businesses and their awareness of the service-disabled 

business community here. 

Ms. WALTERS. First let me say that I do believe that the Federal 

Acquisition Work Force is under-resourced. The contracting community over the years has gone through several different cycles. 

We went through a time when we had a lot of bundling of contracts 

where a contracting officer may be required to spend time on five 

contracts. 

Then that did not provide enough opportunity for small businesses so we went through a cycle of unbundling so that small 

businesses could receive contracts. You could have a contracting officer trying to manage 80 to 100 various contracts. 

All of the contracting officers that I have spoken with, or that I 

work with, are very well aware of the goals and requirements of 

their Department to meet for service-disabled veteran-owned small 

businesses. There are several different councils like the Tidewater 

Government Industry Council where actual contracting officers sit 

with industry representatives and talk about these type of issues 

regarding in-sourcing, out-sourcing. 

That is a big issue right now among small businesses. I think 

they are very well aware that service-disabled veteran-owned small 

businesses exist. It is always astonishing to me when there is a 

sources sought put out for service-disabled veteran-owned small 

businesses to respond to before a contracting officer will set aside 

something to ensure that there are at least two out there. 

I do see a lot of service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses 

responding and then when the procurement comes out it is actually 

not set aside. I have seen that probably more often than I would 

like to see that. Then I never know what happens behind the scene 

whether there is a change in the funding or budget to that agency 

for the programs, whether or not they decided that they have met 

a goal and are now pushing away from that particular goal onto 

another one. I don’t know what goes on behind the scenes. 

Chairman NYE. Can you just mention—I want to note that the 

SBA recently designated your center as a veterans business outreach center. What does that do in terms of your abilities and resources for the coming years? What kind of additional capabilities 

will you have? 

Ms. WALTERS. We actually are looking at four different areas 

that we are going to increase the scope of opportunities. The first 

being, and one that is really important to me, is a mentor protege 

program. Fortunately our partner, the Hampton Roads Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Council, which Mr. Roller is 

part of, as others are here in the room, they are a large council organization of very reputable service-disabled veteran-owned small 

businesses. 

26 

They have come on board with the idea to assist in creating a 

mentor protege program here in the local area where when we 

have folks that come in the door we can then vet them and marry 

their companies up with the appropriate person in their industry 

and their companies will mentor them. I think that is something 

that we would not be capable of doing if we didn’t have the outreach center. That is a number one priority for us. 

Chairman NYE. Great. I appreciate you mentioning that. I wanted to highlight that. I also want to note that I have heard, not just 

today, but a number of local small veteran-owned businesses that 

we can put a lot of effort into mentoring and providing resources 

for help with understanding the contracting process. 

At the end of the day if the process is broken, there is a big problem that we still need to fix. Thank you for continuing to do your 

work on that and for being here to highlight the challenges that 

are beyond what you can do in your day-to-day capacity in terms 

of being an adviser to our small businesses and how to approach 

the system. 

Mr. Kutz, I want to actually just get back to another question 

that you mentioned, that at the end of the day it comes down to 

the consequences side of the equation. If there are none, clearly 

that provides a strong lack of disincentive for businesses and business owners to take advantage of the system and defraud our veteran-owned small businesses. 

I wanted you to tell us a little bit about some consequences that 

you think would be useful in terms of applying here. I want to note 

also the bill that I mentioned in my opening statement that I proposed we provide for criminal prosecution for any business owners 

that knowingly take advantage of the system and defraud our veterans but can you tell us kind of what the range of consequences 

looks like and give us kind of a guideline that we could follow. 

Mr. KUTZ. Right. First of all, the contracts that they get through 

fraudulent means should be taken away. Certainly future options 

from those should be taken away. Companies should be decertified 

or somehow taken out of CCR and any place else that would give 

them any level of credibility as a service-disabled veteran-owned 

small business, and then up the scale to suspension meaning that 

they couldn’t get future work, debarment which is typically a 

longer term process but can also result in a longer-term denial of 

future federal work. 

As you mentioned, the prosecution, as I mentioned in my opening 

statement, if you don’t have any poster children of people who pay 

consequences at the end of the day for fraud, then people will continue to try to game the system because they don’t believe there 

is any chance of getting caught. 

Let me give you an example. One of our cases was the person 

wasn’t even a service-disabled veteran. They got $7.5 million of 

FEMA contracts for Katrina and their attorney advised them to lie 

because there was little or no chance of getting caught. Even if 

they got caught, nothing would happen. As it turns out so far, that 

attorney is correct. 

Chairman NYE. Clearly that is something we’ve got to change. 

Can you talk a little bit about other programs and how does the 

fraud that you uncovered in the service-disabled program compare 

27 

with levels that you might find in 8(a) or HubZone programs? I’m 

trying to establish in relative terms how rampant is the fraud in 

the service-disabled program. 

Mr. KUTZ. It is probably more rampant in this than the other two 

just because this is a complete self-certification program, although 

we can’t project that. Based on the allegations we are getting on 

our hotline and other indicators it would seem to be more prevalent. One common thing that we have talked about, and Michael 

has talked about with me also, Michael Day, is this pass-through 

is common amongst this program where you have some sort of a 

front organization and the work is getting passed through to a 

large business. We have seen that happening in the HubZone, 8(a) 

and service-disabled veteran. I think from a prevalence standpoint 

if I were to guess, and that is all I can do is guess because I don’t 

know for sure, I expect that the fraud rate is higher in this program. 

Chairman NYE. I want to offer to our businesses testifying today 

an opportunity to comment on how they have interacted with any 

of the services through the American Legion or the procurement 

assistance center here. If you have any experience with that you 

would like to share, I would be happy to hear that at this setting. 

Or advice for things that you think would be helpful to us to have 

locally in the future that could help businesses like you do better. 

I also want as an open-ended opportunity to offer you a chance 

to comment on anything you have heard from the other folks at the 

table and provide any additional thoughts about ways we could improve the accountability in this system. 

I would also offer an opportunity if you want to comment on our 

proposal about prosecution of folks for taking advantage of the system. Mr. Roller. 

Mr. ROLLER. I would like to start out by saying the testimony 

that Ms. Walters gave earlier about legislation at the contracting 

officer level, that comes with a two-edged sword. Putting more responsibility on the contracting officers is a good step. However, 

they are already overtaxed with the amount of work they are 

doing. 

Outside of the Department for Veterans Affairs if you place more 

responsibilities, more workload on contracting officers, they may in 

turn set fewer projects aside as SDV set-asides because the amount 

of workload that goes with that and, in turn, look at HubZone or 

8(a)s which requires a little bit less work or even large business 

that requires even less work. I just want to be careful of that. 

As far as locally the Veterans Outreach Center with HRPAC is 

absolutely needed in this area. Again, when I started my business 

we sought counsel with our attorneys to make sure we were legitimately putting things together and that we were not in violation 

of any regulations. That comes with a cost and on average that is 

anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 to $20,000 depending on what 

type of business you are getting into. 

It is certainly a resource to start off with to say how would you 

go about putting together an SDV business. Or, ‘‘I am an SDV. 

How can I get my business certified through the program and what 

are some of the legal steps I need to take?’’ would certainly save 

you some money with one of these outreach programs. 

28 

Also, the discussion of bonding, finances, banking, all those 

things are needed with small SDVs just getting started and the resources are limited. A lot of times small SDVs turn to large business as mentors in helping them get started or even some other 

small businesses. Sometimes that is how they end up with some of 

these team agreements that don’t meet the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation guidelines. 

The small business SDV owner feels he owes it to somebody to 

get some contracts with them because they helped them get started 

in the business. I can certainly see how that can come about. The 

outreach is definitely the first place to start here locally. 

Chairman NYE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. INGRAHAM. I would have to agree 100 percent. The outreach 

program and also the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Council is a nice avenue that is partnering with Ms. Walters 

also. I think that is a great step forward for helping veterans that 

have an idea that want to take it to the next step and how they 

do it properly. 

Chairman NYE. Thank you for mentioning that. I want to take 

the opportunity also to congratulate the Service-Disabled VeteranOwned Small Business Council locally for all the work that they 

have been doing. I really appreciate that. I note that there are 

some other members of the council here present in the audience 

today with us so thank you for everything you have been doing. 

I want to offer the opportunity now for any of the folks at the 

table here to add any comments that they would like that I didn’t 

ask about or if there is any follow-up comments anybody wants to 

make sure to add into the record before we close. I just want to 

make sure I didn’t miss giving everybody the opportunity to say everything they felt like they wanted to say. 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of things I will mention to you. 

Chairman NYE. Yes, Mr. Kutz. 

Mr. KUTZ. I think your legislation is a good step with respect to 

prosecution. I think it wouldn’t hurt, too, for the Committee to 

work with the Department of Justice to try to make it a priority 

for U.S. Attorneys across the country to take at least a few cases 

a year. We are hopeful that a couple of these 10 will make it to 

a U.S. Attorney. We have some hope in Idaho, for example, one of 

our cases may make it to grand jury for indictment. 

Just a couple of cases a year even though they may not be big 

priorities for DOJ and the U.S. Attorneys would be helpful just to 

send a message again and you could help publicize those cases that 

this behavior is not something that should be tolerated and it will 

not be accepted. 

Also, I just want to update you. Of these 10 companies again 

subsequent to your hearing in November of last year five of them 

have received another $5 million of new obligations related to new 

service-disabled set-aside and sole-source contracts so they are still 

in there and they are still getting more contracts fraudulently. 

They also got another $10 million of 8(a) and other contracts subsequent to your hearing. To add insult to injury, they have received 

millions of dollars of Recovery Act contracts so you can see the consequences of not being suspended or debarred they are going to 

29 

continue to be out there and who knows what other kinds of frauds 

they have perpetrated against our government related to these various things. 

The last thing I would say to the Subcommittee and the full 

Committee is to continue your oversight of these small business 

programs because it is important if you are supporters of these programs you have to be supporters of the integrity of these programs 

to make sure that the right people are getting the business. 

I believe taxpayers for the most part will support these programs 

but not if the integrity issues that keep coming up happen. I think 

they want the business to go to veterans in these cases. Certainly 

your continued oversight of this I think is a positive step to keep 

the pressure because sunshine on dark places actually helps. 

Chairman NYE. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Kutz and 

thank you for taking the effort to look into those 10 cases that you 

did. You have revealed to us a level of detail which is useful to us 

in terms of making some changes to help prevent this in the future. 

Clearly it is inexcusable that since we brought this to light 

through your report last November five other companies found to 

have perpetrated fraudulent behavior have continued to receive 

contracts. This just underscores the fact that there is no enforcement mechanism present that actually works. 

What we want to get to here at the end of the day is an accountable system whereby taxpayers can trust that the money that they 

have agreed to set aside for our service-disabled veteran-owned 

small businesses is actually going to legitimate service-disabled 

small businesses for them to be able to do the work they do. 

As Mr. Roller mentioned in his testimony, vets hire vets. One of 

the great values of this system is when we make sure that a certain level of contract dollars go to veteran-owned businesses we 

know that they will in turn higher other veterans. That is a proven 

benefit to our veteran community, to those who have served our 

country in uniform. 

It is a benefit that I think taxpayers agree with doing but we 

owe it to the taxpayers as members of Congress to make sure that 

those taxpayer dollars are being used for the program as intended. 

I think we owe it to the service-disabled veteran community to 

make sure we do the investigations that shed light on whether the 

numbers the agencies are providing us are accurate or not because 

when they complain to us that there are some problems in the system and we go find that the numbers aren’t right, we realize they 

are absolutely correct in the complaints that they raise with us. 

It is incumbent upon us, of course, to make sure to continue to 

practice that oversight and to make the legislative changes that we 

need to make to solve the conundrum that Mr. Roller so aptly described in his testimony today whereby the price of consequences 

is so low in terms of perpetrating fraud that there is no disincentive in the system right now to prevent unscrupulous business owners from defrauding our veterans and that is something we are 

going to change. 

I appreciate you taking the time to come be with us, Mr. Kutz, 

to the GAO for looking into this. 

And Ms. Cavolt and Ms. Walters for the efforts that you do 

through your organizations to help our veteran community apVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:43 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERKS~1\HEARINGS\TRANSC~1\56299.TXT DARIEN
30 

proach business issues and help them navigate the often complicated world of government procurement. And to our business 

owners for taking the risk and the effort to go out there and make 

things happen in the local economy and do business and create jobs 

and economic growth. 

We appreciate the challenges you face. We are going to do what 

we can to help make this playing field as fair for you as possible 

and as transparent as possible. Again, I want to say thanks to the 

other members of the audience who came to be with us today, especially the other members of the small business community, the 

service-disabled veteran community particularly for all the work 

that they do every day to help grow our local economy. 

With that I want to thank everyone for their testimony and I will 

go ahead and adjourn this meeting. 

[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

31 


56299.001
32 


56299.002
33 


56299.003
34 


56299.004
35 


56299.005
36 


56299.006
37 


56299.007
38 


56299.008
39 


56299.009
40 


56299.010
41 


56299.011
42 


56299.012
43 


56299.013
44 


56299.014
45 


56299.015
46 


56299.016
47 


56299.017
48 


56299.018
49 


56299.019
50 


56299.020
51 


56299.021
52 


56299.022
53 


56299.023
54 


56299.024
55 


56299.025
56 


56299.026
57 


56299.027
58 


56299.028
59 


56299.029
60 


56299.030
61 


56299.031
62 

Æ