Veterans of the Land: VA Cemetery Work, Control Allegations and Dissolution

Veterans of the Land paid $1 million to resolve allegations that it falsely claimed service-disabled veteran-owned small business status to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs cemetery work, and agreed to dissolve. The control allegations reached inside the business: who made the important decisions and who supplied its equipment. For someone who worked around those decisions, the ownership papers tell only part of the story.

The Santa Maria company obtained Department of Veterans Affairs contracts from 2008 through 2013 for landscaping and cemetery restoration at national cemeteries, including Riverside National Cemetery. In its settlement announcement, the Justice Department alleged that a non-veteran controlled the company despite its representation that it qualified for the reserved work.

The payment represented virtually all of the company’s assets. The business had no further VA contracts and agreed, as part of the settlement, to dissolve as a corporation.

The Control Allegations Behind the Cemetery Contracts

The Justice Department alleged that the non-veteran co-owner recruited a relative who was a service-disabled veteran to partner in Veterans of the Land. In the government’s account, the veteran lived in Hawaii and spent much of his time there while the non-veteran co-owner made all important corporate decisions, including leasing equipment from another company he owned.

A veteran partner in Hawaii, a cemetery contractor in Santa Maria, and a non-veteran allegedly making the decisions. The same person allegedly decided what the contractor would lease and owned the company providing it. Here, the government’s account connected an operating decision at the contractor to another business owned by the alleged decision-maker.

That is what we examine with an insider: who chose the equipment, who authorized the lease and what authority the veteran owner exercised over those decisions. An employee who dealt with equipment arrangements may have a different view of control from someone who saw only the company’s ownership documents.

The Justice Department stated the qualifying requirement plainly: the veteran had to actually control the company.

What Is Small Business Fraud?

In this case, the alleged small business set-aside fraud was a false claim of eligibility for reserved VA contracts because a non-veteran allegedly controlled the contractor.

The Department of Veterans Affairs was buying work through a program intended to support businesses controlled by service-disabled veterans. The government’s allegation concerned who obtained that opportunity. The decisions inside the company answer the control question.

We see a veteran preference turned on its head: the veteran supplies the qualifying status while a non-veteran allegedly holds the decision-making power. The legitimate veteran-owned competitor has to run the business, compete for the work and carry the responsibilities that come with both. Its eligibility is part of what it brings to the bid.

The Opportunity Extends Beyond One Contract

Winning public work can also give a small business experience that helps it compete for the next award. The Big Power of Small Business, published by the National Contract Management Association in 2025, explains that commercial value:

The article also describes the value of learning an agency’s needs and language through doing its work. That is why we see diverted set-aside opportunities as more than a dispute over the name on one award. The intended business loses a chance to build the experience and customer knowledge that can make its next bid stronger.

Ownership, Control and the Certification System

For the Veterans of the Land contracts, the Justice Department identified actual veteran control as the requirement at issue. That is the question the equipment decisions bring into focus.

Examining SDVOSB Certification, published in The Military Engineer in 2019, described separate systems: Veterans Affairs verified applicants while other agencies used Small Business Administration self-representation. The Small Business Administration later assumed VA veteran-business certification on January 1, 2023. What matters here is who ran the company when it won the work.

A Routine VA Audit Led to the Settlement

The Department of Veterans Affairs began investigating Veterans of the Land after a routine audit of SDVOSB contractors raised concerns about the company. The Justice Department described the resulting settlement as resolving allegations under the federal civil False Claims Act.

The audit drew attention to eligibility. The control account then reached the company’s owners, the veteran’s time in Hawaii and the equipment lease with the non-veteran co-owner’s other business. For an insider, that is the useful connection: a claim made to obtain public work, compared with decisions made in the ordinary course of running the company.

Other VA Cases Put Control Into Operating Records

Veteran Construction Associates admitted False Claims Act liability in a separate Department of Veterans Affairs construction settlement announced in January 2015. The government alleged false veteran ownership and control in obtaining the contracts. The company had completed work and invoiced $6.5 million. Its $1.3 million settlement was a fraction of what it had billed for the work.

In the Academy Medical case, the government alleged that a veteran business bid and invoiced the Department of Veterans Affairs while an Academy employee prepared the bid, arranged the goods and used bank-signature authority to transfer contract receipts to Academy. Academy and its owners admitted that their conduct violated regulations designed to encourage awards to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.

These cases make control tangible. Bids, bank transfers and equipment leases can connect the company presented to the government with the person or business actually exercising authority.

For a person who handles bids, equipment, management communications or payments, ordinary work records may explain that connection. We bring those records together with the ownership claim and the government purchase to understand the case the insider can see.

How Much Money Can a Whistleblower Get From a Qui Tam Lawsuit?

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

You Know Who Made the Decisions

If you worked with VA bids, cemetery operations or equipment leases and know who actually called the shots, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about the control behind the contract. We build your case around that inside knowledge and bring in VA procurement fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand veteran ownership and control. We stay at your side as the case moves from your account of the business to the pursuit of a recovery.