I am participating on a panel discussion in the upcoming American Bar Association webinar, “Key Issues in Government Contractor Mergers and Acquisitions.” The webinar will be Thursday, February 12 from 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. EST.
Listeners will learn best practices for conducting business transactions when government contractors are involved. The panel will address the following
U.S. ex rel American Systems Consulting Inc. v. ManTech Advanced Systems International, No. 14-3269 (6th Cir.)
The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a False Claims Act (FCA) suit against ManTech Advanced Systems International (ManTech). At issue was whether a change in ManTech’s key personnel in a contract was a material false statement. By way of background, ManTech and American Systems Consulting Inc. (ASCI) were in competition for a Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization contract for inventory management support. Each offeror was required to submit a specific individual as the prospective Program Manager and address his skills and qualifications. Both ManTech and ASCI identified a prospective Program Manager but ASCI failed to address his specific skills and qualifications. ManTech received a higher score based on the experience of their proposed Program Manager and was ultimately awarded the contract. However, after initial proposals were submitted, the specific individual ManTech proposed resigned and ManTech did not advise the government nor did they modify their proposal. Subsequently, ASCI filed an FCA action against ManTech, alleging ManTech fraudulently induced the government into awarding it the contract by misrepresenting the person who would act as Program Manager.Continue Reading Change in Personnel Not Material False Statement Under False Claims Act
DHS Technologies LLC and subsidiary DHS Systems LLC recently agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle claims it defrauded the federal government by failing to disclose that it offered greater discounts to a commercial company as part of the renewal of its General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contract in 2007.
Sharon McKinney, a
I recently co-wrote an article with John Kelly, Lindsey Fetzer and Shuchi Parikh that outlined three recent cases in which the Department of Justice pursued joint criminal and civil action against a government contractor. In the article we discuss these cases and provide guidance on what government contractors can do to avoid exposure to both
Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems (“LMIS”), a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, agreed on Friday, December 19, 2014 to pay $27.5 million to resolve allegations that it inflated labor costs and submitted false claims to the government in violation of the False Claims Act. Specifically, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) alleged that LMIS overbilled for work performed by personnel who lacked the job qualifications required under Rapid Response and Strategic Services Sourcing contracts issued by the U.S. Army Communications and Electronics Command.
The overbilling allegations against LMIS are similar to the DOJ’s allegations in a separate case against DRS Technical Services Inc., which resulted in a $13.7 million settlement announced on October 7, 2014. The DOJ also alleged in that case that DRS Technical Services overbilled labor costs for under-qualified employees under the Rapid Response contract.Continue Reading Defense Contractor Reaches Settlement in Procurement Fraud Case Involving Overbilling Allegations
Earlier this year, Geoff Orazem founded Eastern Foundry, an incubator for government contracting companies in Washington, D.C. The veteran-owned business will leverage professional service providers, coaches, mentors, and BD support teams to provide structured and personal coaching for small businesses seeking government contracts.
We had a great time meeting with Geoff and his clients in
Another chapter in the story of one of the most brazen procurement fraud schemes in United States history came to a close on Monday, December 15, 2014, when Eyak Technology LLC (“EyakTek”) and Eyak Services LLC (“ESL”) agreed to pay $2.5 million and relinquish all rights to any additional payments to resolve alleged False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Act violations.
Between 2005 and 2011, EyakTek, an Alaska Native-owned corporation, held the Technology for Infrastructure, Geospatial, and Environmental Requirements (“TIGER”) contract, a $1 billion prime contract with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. It was alleged that throughout the term of the TIGER contract, EyakTek’s former director of contracts, Harold F. Babb, directed subcontracts to vendors that paid him illegal kickbacks. EyakTek and ESL, according to the DOJ, “submitted invoices to the Army Corp that included charges for work that was never performed by the subcontractors and lacked internal controls to detect the improper charges.” The government alleges that EyakTek may have been overpaid nearly $30 million as a result of the misconduct.Continue Reading Government Contractor Reaches Global Settlement to Resolve Procurement Fraud Allegations
Contracting with the Federal Government frequently includes many unique risks and uncertainties. In the wake of the Ebola epidemic occurring overseas the United States has stepped in to provide assistance, much of which comes in the form of the use of contractors. Being exposed to Ebola is not a small risk and comes with many uncertainties including becoming subject to large third-party claims for injury, death or damages. In order to continue supporting these efforts in the Ebola outbreak, there has been a drive to mitigate this risk factor for contractors. On November 13, President Obama released a Presidential Memorandum granting the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) the authority to indemnify companies from lawsuits related to “contracts performed in Africa in support of USAID’s response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa where the contractor, its employees, or subcontractors will have significant exposure to Ebola.”
Continue Reading President Obama Authorizes Use of PL 85-804 to Protect Ebola Contractors
Government contractors who have recently registered or re-registered in the System for Award (SAM) database have come across a new disclosure requirement regarding their corporate structure. New questions inquiring about an “immediate owner” and a “higher-level owner” have sparked confusion as to what these requirements are and where they are coming from.
The requirements were prompted by a new FAR Subpart 4.18 – Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE) requiring all SAM registrants, if owned by another entity, to identify that entity by name, CAGE code and type of ownership. CAGE codes are a five-character identifier used extensively within the Federal Government and provide for standardization of identifying a legal entity across the Federal Government.Continue Reading New CAGE Code Requirements for Contractor’s Ownership Chain
I recently co-wrote an article with John Kelly and Lindsey Fetzer that outlined three recent cases (Leidos Holdings Inc., Boeing Company, DRS Technical Services Inc.) in which government contractors were accused of noncompliance under the False Claims Act (FCA). In the article we analyze these cases and provide guidance on what government contractors can do