offices in Virginia and Florida.. It was not uncommon for prime contractors like WBG and PSSto retain subcontractors to satisfy their contractual obligations to GSA. The prime contractorsreceived payment directly from GSA and subsequently dispersed the funds to the appropriatesubcontractor. These contract employees function in a variety of important capacities and areentrusted with unique access to otherwise government exclusive databases.In 1998, defendant
SMITH
began working at GSA under various prime contractorsincluding WBG and PSS.
5
Her immediate supervisor was GSA Contracting Officer E.V. and herprimary duties included: (1) preparing funding and task order documents; (2) gathering andreviewing solicitation proposals from prime contractors; (3) accurately implementing and closingall NIH Project RWAs in the GSA acquisition system; and (4) initiating and approving thepayment of work orders by confirming that the contracted services were rendered to thegovernment. To perform her duties, GSA granted defendant
SMITH
access and usage rights tovarious government databases, including GSA's contractor invoice database (VITAP), GSA's
5
In 2001, defendant
SMITH
started her own business, NTT Consulting LLC ("NTT"),with a childhood friend, S.C., who was also working at GSA for a subcontractor. NTT became asubcontractor to WBG and PSS on contracts these prime contractors maintained with GSA. Inshort, NTT replaced those companies who had employed defendant
SMITH
and S.C. Defendant
SMITH
served as NTT's Chief Executive Officer and S.C. was NTT's President Defendant
SMITH
and S.C.were equal owners of NTT. Defendant
SMITH,
however
,
controlled theoperations. Defendant
SMITH
prepared and maintained the business records, financialstatements and partnership income tax returns. She also signed and authorized payroll andvendor payments, deposited payment receipts and was the point of contact with GSA contractors.For the calendar years 2003 through 2008, defendant
SMITH
paid herself $1,362,581 from NTTConsulting, while her business partner, S.C., received approximately $649,017. Defendant
SMITH
also received monthly compensation of $1,500 from Interior Systems Inc (“ISI”) forconsulting work between 2003 and 2006. ISI, a service-disabled, veteran-owned small businessbased in Washington, D.C., provided services that included administrative services to federalgovernment agencies.3
Case 1:10-cr-00266-RBW Document 13 Filed 01/14/11 Page 3 of 14