Over the last few years the world of federal contracting has seen an increased focus on the False Claims Act, the prevention of fraud, and the strengthening of fraud-related penalties. 2015 will certainly be no different. However, the new year brings with it a slightly different take on fraud prevention, one aimed
By: Edward T. DeLisle
On April 26, 2010, President Obama issued an executive order to study the way in which the government provides assistance to veteran-owned and service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses. This executive order could not have come at a better time. It appears that the government has a two-fold problem: achieving federally mandated goals for…
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded an $88 million contract for the construction of a fifty-three mile road around a tropical island in the North Pacific. During contract performance, the contractor submitted a certified claim contending that the contract clause, "Time Extensions for Unusually Severe Weather," was defective, resulting in a gross misrepresentation of the number of adverse weather days that could be anticipated during performance of the work. The contractor also contended that reliance on the defective specification led to an increase in the cost to perform the work. The certified claim included costs incurred up to the date of the claim submission and costs estimated to be incurred in the future.
The United States Court of Federal Claims found that $50 million of the contractor’s certified claim of $63.4 million was clearly fraudulent. During the trial, witnesses, including the corporate officer who certified the claim, testified that the $50 million claim "was a means to get the Government’s attention, and to show the Government what would happen if it did not approve the new compaction method that plaintiff wanted." The Court stated that this part of the certified claim was not submitted in good faith, and was not for an amount which the Plaintiff honestly believed it was entitled. Daewoo Engineering and Construction Co., LTD. v. U.S., No. 02-1914C, October 13, 2006. Accordingly, the projected additional costs based on estimates, and not yet incurred, were found to be fraudulent.