[CLC-Discussion] FW: Use of "pass through" material supplier results in $4, 945, 000 penalty

[Robert Worman]

For those of you who have had to fought the battle of a materialman client requesting assistance with it customer in selling to a MBE/DBE when you have reason to suspect it is a sham to reach needed minority percentage by contractor;/owner, the note below may help you to convince the parties otherwise.

Regards,

Robert B. Worman
Worman & Sheffler, P.A.
2707 West Fairbanks Avenue
Suite 200
Winter Park, FL 32789
407 843-5353
rworman at wormanlaw.com<mailto:rworman at wormanlaw.com>
NOTICE:
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT TO THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU MUST NOT REVIEW, RETRANSMIT, CONVERT TO HARD COPY, COPY, USE OR DISSEMINATE THIS E-MAIL OR ANY ATTACHMENT TO IT. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE AT 407-843-5353 AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE.  PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS A FORWARDED MESSAGE OR IS A REPLY TO A PRIOR MESSAGE, SOME OR ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE OR ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY WORMAN & SHEFFLER, P.A.
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE:  TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS UNDER CIRCULAR 230, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS), UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED, WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS LAW FIRM MAY BE ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR AND IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT.  ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.



A national supplier of construction materials (Supplier) has now agreed to pay a fine of $4,945,000 to the United States for participating in transactions in which a certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) acted "merely as a pass through" and did not perform a "commercially useful function."


The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has always had the most complete regulations on DBE participation goals. DOT regulations state that there are no DBE participation points unless the DBE contractor performs a "commercially useful function" (CUF). The regulations do not allow the DBE to be an "extra participant in a transaction, contract or project, through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of DBE participation." A DBE performs a CUF when it is actually performing, managing, and supervising the work. To perform a CUF with respect to materials, the DBE must be responsible for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material and installing materials (where applicable) and paying for the material.


The Environmental Protection Agency has adopted modified DOT commercially useful function regulations. The state of Maryland has passed regulations very similar to the DOT standards for any state public procurement. Virginia regulations state that any entity must perform a CUF in order to be a certified DBE.

The recently settled case involved a series of transactions on multiple projects by both the DOT and EPA. This resulted in a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) between the government and the Supplier, so there was no "court decision." This is not a legal precedent and we do not know how a court would have ruled on these facts. Nonetheless, we know how federal prosecutors view conduct that is very common in the market place by suppliers, DBEs, subcontractors and general contractors. The use of pass through "paper pushers" or "brokers" that participate "in name only" for a 2% or 3% markup will result in investigations and prosecutions.

We have reported in the past on the increasing enforcement of CUF requirements, at here. Past cases have predominantly involved entities that had contracts directly with the government or one tier removed. Participation in more direct misrepresentations to the government has resulted in substantial fines, probation and even jail time.


The Settlement Agreement confirms that the Supplier "did not contract directly with a government entity for any of the federally-funded contracts." Neither did the Supplier "certify -nor was it required to certify -to any government entity that it had or would comply with DBE regulations in connection with those contracts and projects. Nevertheless, the United States contends that . . . [the Supplier] was subject to the DBE requirements because [it]transacted business with a company that had itself contracted with a government entity to perform work on a project that was funded by DOT or EPA, and the DOT Regulations and EPA Regulations apply both to contractors in privity with government entities and to downstream contractors that are not.


It is also significant that the DBE in this case was a DOT certified "Regular Dealer" in the materials purchased. This emphasizes again that CUF requires a "transactional analysis." A DBE must perform a CUF in every transaction. Proper certification does not mean that the DBE performance qualifies for DBE participation credit. Similarly, the fact that a DBE owns warehouses and trucks or has many employees may mean that the DBE is capable of performing a CUF. However, the proper analysis is the role the DBE played in this particular transaction.


Under the DOT regulation, the DBE must be responsible for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material and paying for the material to perform a CUF with respect to materials. The Settlement Agreement in this recent case confirms that "various prime contractors represented falsely that [the DBE] had performed a commercially useful function by negotiating price and other terms of sale when, in reality, the prime contractors had negotiated terms with [the Supplier] and used [the DBE] merely as a pass through. [The DBE] collected invoices from [the Supplier]; transferred the information from those invoices to [the DBE's] own invoices and added a markup; and passed [the DBE] invoices on to the prime contractors. The prime contractors then represented falsely to federal, state and/or local contract-letting authorities that [the DBE] supplied materials that, in reality, [the Supplier] supplied. In this connection, [the Supplier's] conduct enabled various prime contractors to certify falsely that materials were supplied by [the DBE] when the parties -i.e. [the Supplier, the DBE], and the prime contractors - knew that was not the case, resulting in the submission to government entities of false or fraudulent claims for payment from federal funds.


Copies of the Settlement Agreement and the United States Attorney Office press release are available on request to the undersigned. The investigation of the DBE and prime contractors in this case may continue. The results will probably appear at the DOT Inspector General's website in the future http://www.oig.dot.gov./

<http://nacmsouthatlantic.com/iem/link.php?M=6079&N=45&L=68&F=H>

Readers are welcome to reprint or republish this article with the following attribution:
© (2015) James D. Fullerton
Fullerton & Knowles, P.C.
Clifton, VA (703) 818-2600
Use the Free Construction Law Survival Manual at www.FullertonLaw.com<http://nacmsouthatlantic.com/iem/link.php?M=6079&N=45&L=69&F=H>
JFullerton at FullertonLaw.com<mailto:JFullerton at FullertonLaw.com>


Resent to NACM South Atlantic members with permission from Fullerton & Knowles. P.C.
Unsubscribe me from this list<http://nacmsouthatlantic.com/iem/unsubscribe.php?M=6079&C=9eb55fdb8c4c90723886d727cf4e1921&L=19&N=45>

NACM South Atlantic
www.nacmsouthatlantic.com<http://nacmsouthatlantic.com/iem/link.php?M=6079&N=45&L=17&F=H>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150825/f9b54380/attachment-0001.html>