Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-DC  1:19-cr-00403
Case Name:   USA v. SIMPKINS
  Press Releases:
           WASHINGTON – Ronnie Simpkins, 67, a former government contract officer with the General Services Administration (GSA), pled guilty today to a federal bribery charge stemming from a scheme in which he accepted bribes from government contractors from August 2011 to August 2017.

           The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, Timothy M. Dunham, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Washington Field Office, Criminal Division, and Eric D. Radwick, Acting Special Agent in Charge, National Capital Region, Office of Investigations.

           Simpkins, of Lusby, Md., pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The charge carries a statutory maximum of 15 years in prison and potential financial penalties. Under federal sentencing guidelines, Simpkins faces a likely range of 18 to 24 months in prison and a fine of up to $75,000. He also has agreed to pay approximately $12,108 in a forfeiture money judgement. The Honorable Trevor N. McFadden scheduled sentencing for March 18, 2020.

           According to the government’s evidence, from 1989 until May 2019, Simpkins was employed by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) as a Contract Specialist, informally known as a Contracting Officer, in procurement related positions, and between August 2013 and May 2019, he worked as a Contract Specialist assigned to GSA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. As a Contract Specialist, Simpkins was deemed to be a public official as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 201(a)(1), and as a senior Contract Specialist.

           From February 2010 to August 2017, Simpkins was assigned to a sub-division of the Federal Acquisition Service, which oversees the administration of GSA Schedule 70 contracts. “Schedules” are long-term government-wide contracts with commercial companies that provide access to commercial products and services at fair and reasonable prices to the government. “Schedule 70 contracts” provide IT solutions, services, and software to federal, state, and local customer agencies. GSA pre-negotiates the vendors’ pricing, terms, and conditions, to streamline the acquisition process while at the same time providing the best value to the end user agency.

           Company A was a corporation owned by Person 1 and Person 2 and was located in Northern Virginia. At times during the relevant time-period, the company’s website included a link entitled: “GSA Schedule,” which emphasized for prospective customers that the company was awarded a GSA Scheduled contract. Advertising its GSA Schedule status was seen as benefiting Company A when it sought contracting opportunities with other federal agencies, as those agencies may have considered Company A’s GSA status and GSA pricing in fashioning their own contracts.

           To maintain a GSA Schedule contract, Company A was required to have annual sales in excess of $25,000. GSA Schedule contracts are subject to cancellation if sales levels are not met. The annual sales requirement can be waived by the GSA Administrative Contracting Officer (“ACO”) for good cause after communicating with the contract vendor. If the contract vendor can demonstrate that it has potential, pending or unreported sales, the ACO normally will allow the contract to continue and withdraw the contract cancellation. In addition, contractors, such as Company A, are required to pay an Industrial Funding Fee (“IFF”) of 0.75% of all Schedule sales. The IFF is a fee to cover GSA’s cost of operating the Federal Supply Schedules program.

           Simpkins administered and oversaw Company A’s GSA contracts for years, beginning on or about June 3, 2009, while Company A held a GSA contract, and continuing through August 2017 when GSA awarded Company A with a replacement contract. Simpkins’ duties included executing contract modifications and ensuring contract compliance.  Company A maintained its GSA Schedule contract despite reporting no sales and not paying any IFFs since 2006.

           Beginning in or around August 2011, and continuing through in or around August 2017, Simpkins received and agreed to receive from Person 1 and Person 2 things of value, including cash, meals, and furniture, in return for, when the opportunity arose, using his official position at GSA to help Company A through the performance of official action, aiding in the commission of a fraud on the United States, and acting or failing to act in violation of his official duty.  

           Simpkins met Person 1 and/or Person 2 over a dozen times at various restaurants in Northern Virginia, at Person 1 and Person 2’s residence, and other places, often outside of normal GSA business hours and on weekends.  As Simpkins admitted to law enforcement, Person 1 and Person 2 paid for meals during their meetings at restaurants.  During some of their meetings (Simpkins estimated 15 times), Simpkins accepted cash payments totaling approximately “thousands of dollars into the teens.” After receiving the cash, Simpkins often deposited some or all of it into his Navy Federal Credit Union account. During the relevant period, Simpkins deposited $9,750.00 in cash into that account, consisting of the cash payments he accepted from Person 1 and Person 2.  In July of 2016, Simpkins also accepted furniture paid for by Person 1 and/or Person 2, valued at $2,358.91. Between the cash payments and furniture, not including meals paid for by Person 1 and/or Person 2, Simpkins admits to accepting at least $12,108.91 in things of value from Person 1 and Person 2.

           In exchange for these things of value, oftentimes soon before or after the meetings with Person 1 and Person 2, Simpkins took official action and/or provided improper assistance to benefit Company A’s GSA Schedule contracts.  Specifically, Simpkins recommended and signed Company A’s contracts with GSA, even though Company A failed to meet program requirements; willfully neglected to notify GSA, as he was obligated to do, when Company A’s contract under his supervision no longer met program requirements; and advised Company A about ways to avoid contract cancellation despite failing to meet GSA’s program requirements.

           In announcing the plea, U.S. Attorney Liu, Special Agent in Charge Dunham, and Acting Special Agent in Charge Radwick, commended the work performed by those who investigated the case from the FBI’s Washington Field Office and GSA Office of Inspector General. They acknowledged the efforts of those who worked on the case from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including Paralegal Specialist Amanda Rohde and Quiana Dunn-Gordon, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Denise Simmonds, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Virginia Cheatham, who is prosecuting the case.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2cxq2M-yAzUdOAXmuyb4-Ix87mzHci-lFT3TVF1gI4
  Last Updated: 2024-04-11 10:41:35 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E