false claims | The Contracting Education Academy

January 8, 2021 By cs

Judge rules that lying about 8(a) eligibility violates False Claims Act

Another court has joined the growing chorus of judges who are singing the same tune on set-aside fraud: when a government contractor lies about its eligibility for a set-aside contract, it violates the False Claims Act, and can be sued by either the Department of Justice or a whistleblower.

The new case is United States ex rel. Montes v. Main Building Maintenance Inc., and the decision was issued on December 22, 2020, by Judge Jason Pulliam of the Western District of Texas.

This is a qui tam case brought under the False Claims Act by a whistleblower, or “relator” as it’s called under that statute. The relator alleges that two parents, Robert and Elvira Ximenes, created a company, JXM, to bid on government contracts reserved (or, in technical terms, “set aside”) for contractors that qualified for the so-called “8(a) Business Development program” for small businesses that are owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged people or entities.”

To qualify for such set-aside contracts, the business must first be “certified” as eligible by the Small Business Administration (SBA). And to be eligible for such certification, the business must make a series of representation to SBA about who both owns the business, and who controls the business.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-judge-texas-rules-lying-about-eligibility-8a-business-development-program

December 22, 2020 By cs

Defense contractors charged and sentenced for Turkey-based defense contracting fraud scheme

Multiple defense contractors have been charged and/or sentenced for participating in a multi-million-dollar defense contracting fraud scheme based out of Turkey.

According to U.S. Attorney Byung J. (“BJay”) Pak, the charges, and other information presented in court:

Murat Gonenir, along with at least two other defendants, participated in an extensive Turkey-based scheme to defraud the U.S. military.
The defendants applied for and obtained access to a sensitive Department of Defense (DoD) contracting database housing some of the military’s most sensitive schematics, which is only lawfully accessible by U.S. and Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
Once the defendants obtained access to the database, they downloaded thousands of sensitive schematics for parts such as a handle casting for an 105 millimeter tray assembly for an AC-130H Gunship, and catapult/arresting gear for Nimitz and Forrestal Class aircraft carriers.
Gonenir obtained access to this sensitive database by falsely claiming he was a U.S. or Canadian citizen or permanent resident.
The defendants offered bids on numerous defense contracts for these sensitive schematics that required them to produce these parts in the United States. Instead, they produced these parts in Gonenir’s manufacturing plants in Turkey and then falsely claimed to the DoD that the parts had been lawfully produced in the United States.

The DoD paid millions of dollars to the various defense contractors who took part in this scheme as a result of these false statements.

DoD testing revealed that various parts produced at Gonenir’s plants were of such inferior design that they could have resulted in serious injury or death to U.S. military personnel if the parts had been put into production. Several members of the conspiracy were told that DoD testing had determined that at least one of the parts had failed inspection. However, the defendants kept producing parts in Turkey and falsely claiming the parts were produced in the United States.

The defendants and their sentences are as follows:

Murat Gonenir, 59, of Cankaya, Turkey was sentenced to three years, five months in prison and three years of supervised release, and he was ordered to pay $1,487,950.77 in restitution and a special assessment of $100.
Batur Ustol, 61, of Atlanta, Georgia, was sentenced to two years and six months in prison and three years of supervised release for his role in the conspiracy, and he was ordered to pay $100,000 in restitution and a special assessment of $100 in a related matter.
Suleyman Sevket Bayraktar, 43, of Fountain Valley, California, was sentenced to six months in prison, six months of home confinement, and three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $161,925 in restitution and a special assessment of $100.

This case was investigated by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and DoD’s Criminal Investigative Service.

December 18, 2020 By cs

Court of Appeals issues important decision on application of False Claims Act to set-aside contracts

On December 3, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Strock, a ruling that will significantly strengthen the hand of the government, and of qui tam whistleblowers, in False Claims Act cases against companies awarded government set-aside contracts but do not meet the requirements of the particular set-aside.

The contracts at issue in Strock were set aside for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs).

Still, the Court’s reasoning also applies to other types of set-aside contracts, such as small business, women-owned small business, or HUBZone set-asides. This decision should hearten whistleblowers who have information about fraud in government contracting set-aside programs.

The Facts Of United States v. Strock

The government sued Strock Contracting, its owner Lee Strock, and one of Strock’s employees. The government alleged that Strock set up a new company called Veteran Enterprises Company (VECO) to bid on SDVOSB-reserved contracts from the Army, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. Strock, however, was not a disabled veteran. Instead, he recruited another individual, a disabled veteran named Terry Anderson.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-appeals-issues-important-decision-application-false-claims-act-to-set-aside

Read the full decision in this case at: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/36dc4bcd-69b0-4890-b0e2-56e98757e39f/3/doc/19-4331_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/36dc4bcd-69b0-4890-b0e2-56e98757e39f/3/hilite/

December 3, 2020 By cs

Contractor agrees to pay $18.98 million for alleged overcharges and use of unqualified labor

Cognosante LLC has agreed to pay the United States $18,987,789 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by using unqualified labor and overcharging the United States for services provided to government agencies under two General Services Administration (GSA) contracts, the Justice Department.

Cognosante, which is headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, provides health care and IT services and solutions to federal agencies.

GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts allow the federal government to leverage its buying power to achieve favorable pricing. Under MAS contracts, contractors negotiate with GSA to set maximum prices for goods and services subsequently ordered by agencies across the federal government. These contracts provide streamlined access to the federal marketplace.

The settlement resolves allegations that Cognosante overcharged the United States for services performed under two GSA MAS contracts, including by providing false information concerning Cognosante’s commercial discounting practices during contract negotiations. It also resolves allegations that Cognosante charged the United States for labor that failed to meet the qualifications in one of the contracts.

Cognosante investigated and disclosed to the United States the contractual violations resolved in the settlement. It received credit for its disclosure and cooperation.

The settlement was the result of a joint investigation by the GSA OIG, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch. The claims resolved by the settlement agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-contractor-agrees-pay-1898-million-alleged-false-claims-act-caused-overcharges-and

November 11, 2020 By cs

Supreme Court may clarify what qualifies as a ‘false claim’

Until recently, it was well-accepted that a violation of the False Claims Act (FCA) occurs only when there is a misrepresentation that is objectively false.

Four circuits — the Fourth, Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh — had adopted this “objective falsity” standard. In March 2020, however, the Third and Ninth Circuits issued decisions departing from this view, holding that objective falsity is not required and “legal falsity” can suffice. These decisions created a stark circuit split with profound implications for government contractors, and there is now a pending petition to the Supreme Court to address and clarify the matter.

First, a refresher: The FCA does not define “false or fraudulent,” leaving courts to look to common law to interpret what constitutes a “false” claim. Many circuits had found that a representation must be objectively false to qualify as a false claim, meaning that a false claim cannot arise where there is a genuine dispute and a claim is alleged to be false based on a subjective assessment. The Third Circuit was among those endorsing this view, holding that under the FCA “a statement is ‘false’ when it is objectively untrue,” United States ex rel. Thomas v. Siemens AG, 593 F. App’x 139, 143 (3d Cir. 2014), and that “expressions of opinion, scientific judgments or statements as to conclusions which reasonable minds may differ cannot be false.” United States ex rel. Hill v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 448 F. App’x 314, 316 (3d Cir. 2011).

Keep reading this article at: https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2020/11/10/what-qualifies-as-a-false-claim-supreme-court-may-clarify/

Another court has joined the growing chorus of judges who are singing the same tune on set-aside fraud: when a government contractor lies about its eligibility for a set-aside contract, it violates the False Claims Act, and can be sued by either the Department of Justice or a whistleblower.

Multiple defense contractors have been charged and/or sentenced for participating in a multi-million-dollar defense contracting fraud scheme based out of Turkey.

The Facts Of United States v. Strock

Until recently, it was well-accepted that a violation of the False Claims Act (FCA) occurs only when there is a misrepresentation that is objectively false.

Search this Website