The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
  • Home
  • Training & Education
  • Services
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for False Claims Act

September 14, 2012 By AMK

‘Byzantine warren of fiefdoms’ makes contracting fraud hard to stop

On a hot summer day in 2011, two men sat in a car outside of L’Enfant Plaza in Washington, D.C. Away from any offices, they arranged a secret deal — a $1 million bribe from a contractor in exchange for a $1 billion federal contract.

What the federal contracting officer accepting the bribe didn’t know, however, that the car was wired and the other man was an informant.

David Williams, the U.S. Postal Service’s inspector general, said in a Sept. 6 speech that this example– for which he gave no additional detail — and other schemes prove that federal contracting fraud is lucrative — and that the government needs reinforcements to stop it.

“Bribery, extortion, kickbacks, false claims, foreign corrupt practices, and that’s just the freshman course in this business,” he said.

Keep reading this article at: http://fcw.com/articles/2012/09/06/breeding-ground-contract-fraud-crime.aspx 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, bribery, corruption, extortion, False Claims Act, federal contracting, fraud, kickback, waste

April 10, 2012 By AMK

Lockheed pays millions to settle False Claims allegations

The federal government’s overpayment for tools to make fighter jets has led to a $15.85 million settlement between Lockheed Martin Corp. and the Justice Department, the agency announced on March 23.

While the defense contractor has not admitted wrongdoing, the payment resolves False Claims Act allegations, as the government alleged that Lockheed subcontractor Tools & Metals Inc., an aeronautics business tooling supplier, inflated costs for military aircraft tool orders for the government.

A private party can file an action and receive a portion of the settlement under the False Claims Act. In this case, two whistleblowers will split $2 million of the funds.

The Justice Department brought a civil suit against Lockheed and charged them for acting “recklessly.” Specifically, the government said that the contractor did not properly oversee Tools & Metal’s charging practices and mishandled information that revealed the deleterious pricing.

Stuart F. Delery, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division, called Lockheed’s actions “troubling,” because of its failure to pursue the “validity of the costs submitted…,” according to the announcement.

Between 1998 and 2005, the subcontractor allegedly overinflated the prices of perishable tools, such as drill bits, cutters, router bits, reamers and sockets used in manufacturing F-22s, F-35s and other military aircraft made by Lockheed for the Defense Department. In December 2005, former Tools & Metals president Todd Loftis, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven years in prison for the scheme, according to the Justice Dept. announcement.

In late 2007, Lockheed Martin said the Justice Department notified it of the ongoing investigation into the billing practices of Fort Worth, TX-based Tools & Metal.

“At no time did we knowingly engage in any inappropriate billing, but in an effort to close the matter in a timely manner we have agreed to a settlement,” said Joe Stout, director of communications of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, in a statement.

“As a result of the investigation, Lockheed Martin has taken steps to ensure that its oversight of the supplier management process remains vigorous and that applicable controls are uniformly applied. We remain committed to upholding the highest standards of ethics in every aspect of our business,” he added.

Lockheed Martin Corp., of Bethesda, Md., ranks No. 1 on Washington Technology’s 2011 Top 100 list of the largest federal government contractors.

About the Author: Alysha Sideman is the online content producer for Washington Technology.   This article appeared on Mar. 26, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/03/26/lockheed-justice-settlement.aspx.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: False Claims Act, Justice Dept.

January 11, 2012 By AMK

$27B later, Deepwater project killed

The Coast Guard’s $27 billion “Deepwater” acquisition program is dead.

Writing under the headline, “Deepwater R.I.P.” in the agency’s Service Lines publication, Rear Admiral Jake Korn, assistant commandant for acquisition and chief acquisition officer, said the agency’s ambitious but troubled program to modernize its marine and air assets that started in 2002 was now in its final days.

“The time has come for the U.S. Coast Guard to officially drop the Deepwater name from any reference to our acquisition portfolio,” Korn wrote in the report. “The active period of performance for the last line item under the Integrated Coast Guard Systems contract ends in January, and there will be no further work initiated.”

The Coast Guard is moving forward to fulfill its modernization goals in several ongoing asset modernization and replacement efforts, Korn added in the Dec. 8 article.

“Deepwater is officially dead – long live Coast Guard recapitalization,” Korn wrote.

The Integrated Deepwater Systems program began as a $17 billion multi-year procurement to produce much-needed cutters, patrol boats and other vessels and aircraft for the Coast Guard to replace its aging fleet. The prime contract was awarded to Integrated Coast Guard Systems, a joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp.

However, the agency got behind schedule, as costs rose and deadlines were pushed back. The Coast Guard rejected an initial delivery of 123-foot patrol boats, saying the boats were structurally unsound. The agency subsequently took over as lead systems integrator in 2007 and has continued procuring and deploying Deepwater assets. The Coast Guard sued Bollinger Shipyards earlier this year for its Deepwater work.

Korn said the Deepwater “umbrella” no longer serves the agency’s ongoing recapitalization needs.

“Deepwater was an innovative idea and in line with conventional wisdom at the time,” Korn wrote. “Moreover, the Coast Guard found ourselves in a position where all our surface assets were in need of recapitalization at nearly the same time, and we needed to elucidate the urgency of this problem. Deepwater was the solution.

“However, due to some well-publicized problems in execution, the Deepwater title now has negative connotations,” Korn continued. “In the end, the general consensus is that we ceded too much responsibility to the contractor, including some functions that should have been reserved for government employees.”

Nonetheless, he argued, the agency has “learned many hard lessons” and has collectively improved its acquisition expertise as a result of the Deepwater effort.

Furthermore, Korn said Deepwater was meant to be time-limited, while the need for recapitalization is ongoing.

Deepwater “had an artificial end date associated with it. This end date implied that the Coast Guard would be recapitalized, no further Acquisition Construction and Improvement funding would be needed, and all would be well,” Korn wrote.

Korn estimated that in meeting its overall asset recapitalization needs, the Coast Guard has achieved 25 percent to 50 percent of that goal.

However, Michael DeKort, a whistleblower who filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against the Deepwater contractors (partially settled in 2010), said the Deepwater problems have had negative impacts in terms of the agency’s ability to maintain a ready fleet.

“I applaud the Coast Guard ending the Lead Systems Integrator contract and taking over,” DeKort wrote in a blog entry on Jan. 4. “But don’t think for a second that is nearly enough. The fleet is in far worse shape than before Deepwater began.”

About the Author: Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Federal Computer Week.   This article appeared Jan. 4, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/01/04/coast-guard-chief-acquisition-officer-declares-deepwater-to-be-dead.aspx?s=wtdaily_050112.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition strategy, Coast Guard, cost overrun, False Claims Act, innovation

December 12, 2011 By AMK

Senator would expand whistleblower protections to contractors

Declaring that contractor employees now outnumber federal workers, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., on Tuesday sought to marshal arguments for “cleaning up the patchwork” of whistleblower-related laws and advancing a bill (S 241) to extend whistleblower protections to employees working under federal contracts.

“Whistleblowers make a difference time and again,” said McCaskill, citing revelations of mishandling of military remains at Arlington Cemetery and Dover Air Force Base.

“Someone who worked there told someone,” she said at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight. “But a whistleblower who works for a contractor doesn’t have the same protections.”

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, noted that with “half a trillion dollars a year, or 15 percent of the budget,” being spent on contractors, it is time to rethink the 19 current laws. “Whistleblowers are the eyes and ears of all of us, and are a vital communications link between daily program managers and those in Congress responsible for oversight,” he said.

The Non-Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, introduced by McCaskill and Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., is modeled after the data transparency provisions in the 2009 Recovery Act, which covered contractor employees. It also would expand the scope of covered disclosures, allow for protected disclosures to be made to employers and provide a shield against retaliation.

Such an expansion of protections could help the inspectors general community, testified Peg Gustafson, IG for the Small Business Administration who chairs the IG council’s legislative committee. “The IG community is too small to do without whistleblowers,” she said.

A survey of IGs, however, revealed some concerns that their offices maintain discretion in husbanding resources rather than being mandated to follow up on whistleblower complaints that don’t appear promising, particularly within a prescribed time frame.

“An additional area of concern is a requirement that IGs disclose pending investigations of a whistleblower’s reprisal complaint to the whistleblower’s employer,” Gustafson said. “Such disclosure requirements could jeopardize the ability to obtain accurate information for the investigation. Efforts to provide IGs with greater discretion on whether to disclose an investigation to the employer would likely assist OIG investigatory efforts.”

McCaskill asked whether the absence of an IG follow-up to a complaint meant a loss of public accountability. Gustafson replied that IGs report their decisions in their semiannual reports and remind whistleblowers that they have the right to take their case to court.

Marguerite Garrison, the Defense Department’s deputy inspector general for administrative investigations, described the valuable contributions of whistleblowers since Pentagon contractors were given protections in 2008. Complaints about reprisals against whistleblowers have grown, she noted, but in far greater numbers within the military than among civilian contractors, largely because “we’ve done a great job of advising our military of their protections, and I’m not sure contractors are as well-informed.”

But she noted limits to the policy — protections do not cover contactor employees who first report wrongdoing to their company managers rather than the government; they don’t prevent actions against employees directed by government officials; and they do not extend to subcontractors “who may be well-positioned to report waste, fraud or abuse to the government, protection from reprisal,” Garrison said. “This stands in contrast to other private sector whistleblower protection statutes, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”

Also testifying at the hearing was whistleblower Walter Tamosaitis, who in 2010 was abruptly terminated in from his job as research and technology manager for the nuclear waste treatment plant project in Hanford, Wash., a $500 million contract overseen by Bechtel Corp. He said his firing came after he had raised safety and technical issues, and he has spent the past 16 months collecting a salary while confined to a basement office with little to no meaningful work and essentially no contact” with management. “Even though it ruined my career, I would do it again,” he said, noting that his case is in the courts.

McCaskill said Tamosaitis is a “walking billboard for other employees to keep their mouths shut, don’t say anything or you’ll be banished to the basement.”

Asked for a response, spokesman Jason Bohne said Bechtel is contesting Tamosaitis’ retaliation claim and all related allegations of wrongdoing.

“At the waste treatment plant, we expect everyone to identify and raise issues,” he said.

“We have not and will not tolerate retaliation or harassment in any form against anyone who raises issues,” he said. “In fact, a recently released report by a team of independent nuclear safety experts confirmed that there is no widespread evidence that there is a chilled atmosphere adverse to safety, or that WTP management suppresses technical dissent.”

Speaking in strong support of the bill as a needed public statement of whistleblower policy was Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight. “Perhaps the best illustration of how whistleblowers can save taxpayer dollars is the more than $27 billion recovered since 1987 through the hugely successful False Claims Act award program,” she said.

But POGO recommends several improvements to the bill. They include requiring IGs to list the number of complaints received, investigations to be concluded and a summary of results to be issued; contractors to use wall posters to publicize whistleblower rights; and expansion of incentive rewards available under the False Claims Act.

Portman said he was concerned about why more whistleblowers didn’t first take their case up the internal channels and worried that, absent a statute of limitations, some whistleblower cases could spill over into other disputes.

McCaskill said she wanted to enlist Portman’s help with the bill and warned that three other pending Senate bills on whistleblowers, because they exclude contractors, actually “make things worse.”

— by Charles S. Clark- Federal Executive – December 6, 2011 at http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49488&dcn=e_gvet.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: abuse, budget, False Claims Act, fraud, harassment, IG, POGO, waste, whistleblower

September 21, 2011 By AMK

Defense department contractors may see new hiring regulations

A proposed Defense Department regulation, if implemented, will substantially change how contractors hire, oversee and track certain former civilian and military personnel. As proposed, it will also establish a new suspension and debarment risk for contractors that hire former personnel.

On June 6, the department issued a proposed rule — DFARS Case 2010-D020 “Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials” — to require all offerors to submit a representation, upon submission of the offer, that all employees who are former Defense Department “covered officials” (defined in DFARS Clause 252.203-7000), to the best of the offeror’s knowledge and belief, comply with:

  • Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 203.171-3 that
    states that covered Defense Department officials must have received or requested
    an ethics opinion on post-government employment restrictions;
  • 18 U.S.C. 207 and 5 C.F.R. Part 2641, which is the statute and regulations
    affecting post-government employment of ex-government civilian personnel and
    military officers; and
  • Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3.104-2, which implements the
    Procurement Integrity Act.

This proposed rule would likely have the several effects. For example, it will share responsibility for compliance with post-government employment laws and regulations between ex-government personnel to defense contractors. Current post-government employment laws impose criminal and civil liability on ex-government personnel violations.

It will also require defense contractors to implement new compliance measures. To ensure compliance, defense contractors must establish systems and processes to identify, track, educate, and obtain periodic certifications from all employees, consultants, and others who receive compensation and who are former “covered officials.”

The new requirement will burden both smaller contractors that must establish a new compliance program to meet this requirement, as well as larger defense contractors that must levy the requirement on subsidiaries, joint ventures and affiliates, even those entities that are non-government contractors. Any new compliance system obviously will increase contractor overhead costs, which often are passed on to the government.

It will also impose on defense contractors a new liability over which they have no control. Because the proposed regulation does not limit the certification to the activities of the former “covered employees” on a Defense Department contract or even related to employment by the contractor, the contractor will be required to certify compliance of its employees even as to their personal, off-duty activities.

Consultants and part-time employees working for other companies or organizations may violate their restriction in pursuit of other activities wholly unconnected to the certifying contractor. For example, an ex-military officer employed by a contractor may violate her representational restrictions under 18 U.S.C. 207 by contacting the government on behalf of another company for which she is consulting, or even as a volunteer for a civic,
charitable or scouting organization.

The proposed regulation may also deter smaller companies from bidding on Defense Department contracts. Smaller commercial contractors with less sophisticated employee screening and tracking systems may view this requirement as too costly to introduce across their enterprise in order to seek new defense business.

Another result may be that contractors will be deterred from hiring ex-military and Defense Department personnel. The proposed rule imposes both a new risk of non-compliance, which could lead to suspension and debarment or liability under the False Claims Act, as well as a new requirement for a compliance system to mitigate the risk. Thus, defense contractors likely will be deterred from hiring ex-military and department personnel. Ironically, this proposed rule red flags former department personnel — including Title 10 reserves and National Guard personnel — as potential burdens for Defense contractors.

The proposed regulation applies only to “covered officials,” but the difficulty in identifying who qualifies as a “covered official,” may cause defense contractors, especially smaller contractors, to simply close the door to all former department personnel.

Another potential consequence is that it may deter civilian federal employees from working in the Defense Department. Since the restrictions apply only to former department personnel, civilian employees, especially procurement and senior program managers who qualify as “covered employees,” may choose to serve in other federal agencies instead of Defense, if they envision post-government employment in the commercial sector. This obviously would frustrate Defense Department efforts to build a world-class acquisition work force.

The bottom line is that the proposed regulation offers several dysfunctional, expensive, and possibly unintended consequences that the Defense Department hopefully will address as it considers whether it should be implemented.

– by Steve Epstein, chief counsel for ethics and compliance at The Boeing Company. The views expressed are solely those of the author. Published by National Defense magazine, October 2011 at http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/October/Pages/DefenseDepartmentContractorsMaySeeNewHiringRegulations.aspx

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, compensation, compliance, debarment, DoD, ethics, False Claims Act, procurement integrity, small business

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • Next Page »

Popular Topics

abuse acquisition reform acquisition strategy acquisition training acquisition workforce Air Force Army AT&L bid protest budget budget cuts competition cybersecurity DAU DFARS DHS DoD DOJ FAR fraud GAO Georgia Tech GSA GSA Schedule GSA Schedules IG industrial base information technology innovation IT Justice Dept. Navy NDAA OFPP OMB OTA Pentagon procurement reform protest SBA sequestration small business spending technology VA
Contracting Academy Logo
75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
info@ContractingAcademy.gatech.edu
Phone: 404-894-6109
Fax: 404-410-6885

RSS Twitter

Search this Website

Copyright © 2021 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute