Our experienced Defense Contractor Attorney near Florence SC is ready to assist and advise clients through the complex landscape of investigations, lawsuits, and compliance obstacles they may encounter. As a federal contractor, it is crucial to navigate the intricate rules and regulations surrounding public procurement, including the status of small businesses and FAR regulations governing contract innovation. With the Department of Defense set to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to private companies in the coming years, our attorney will play a vital role in shaping the future of our country's military on a national and international level.sovereign borders. While this means that companies that can obtain defense contracts can reap enormous benefits, it also means that the Department of Defense, the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal agencies will step up oversight of defense contractors. With America's enormous defense budget, it's estimated that billions of taxpayer dollars are lost each year due to fraud, waste and abuse. The Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and other agencies are constantly attacking defense contractors in audits and investigations, and individuals accused of fraud face significant penalties under the False Claims Act and other federal laws. Material and product substitutions are among the most common examples of defense contractor fraud, and while in theory they are easy to detect, the huge volume of Department of Defense acquisitions means that problems often go unnoticed for months or years, if not indefinitely.
While some cases of replacement of substandard materials and products are undoubtedly intentional, errors in ordering and delivery, misinterpretation of contract conditions and other issues can also result in involuntary substitutions. Cost inflation is another common allegation, both in terms of products and labor. Falsifying vendor invoices, filling in employee time cards, and billing labor at a higher rate are three of the most common examples, but fraud investigations by federal defense contractors can also focus on a wide range of other allegations related to cost inflation. Cross-charging is another example of a fraudulent practice that can be committed intentionally or accidentally.
In a typical cross-charging investigation, the Department of Defense will allege that the contractor billed the services under a contract with an additional cost that should have been billed through another fixed-price contract. Some federal investigations into fraud against defense contractors allege that the contractor billed the United States Government for services provided to another company under a private contract (or, possibly, even to a foreign government under a foreign acquisition contract).). These scenarios are often not as simple as they initially seem, and in many cases, defense contractors will have strong defenses in the face of Department of Defense accusations. The Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) requires defense contractors to negotiate prices with the federal government in good faith when information about competitive pricing is not available.
Investigations carried out under the TINA often include innovative and highly customized defense technologies, which are delivered according to specifications and which, according to a Department of Defense official, subsequently cost the government more than necessary. Allegations of bid manipulation are common in all types of public procurement and, in particular, in certain segments of procurement of defense. In a typical bid manipulation investigation, the Department of Defense will allege that the winning bidder of a defense contract illegally conspired with an alleged “competitor” to (i) ensure that each company won a contract at a non-competitive price, or (ii) allow the winning bidder to obtain a non-competitive contract and then hire the “loser” as a subcontractor. Offering bribes, unlawful commissions, and other illegal payments to Department of Defense officials and other government personnel is a federal offense that carries the potential for up to 15 years of incarceration.
Financial transactions between defense contractors, subcontractors, and other third parties (i.e., those involving compensation for referrals or contract awards paid with Department of Defense funds) may also violate the False Claims Act and other federal laws. Since the Department of Defense does not have the capacity to perform comprehensive quality control tests for all products delivered under its defense contracts, it depends on contractors to do much of the quality control work for their own products and services. The falsification of quality control reports, the selective selection of samples for testing, the intimidation of outside quality control inspectors, and other forms of fraud can lead to costly federal charges. Presenting false information or hiding information to win a bid for a defense contract is a form of fraud that can have devastating consequences if discovered once the contract works are being carried out.
Not only could the contract itself be in jeopardy, but the Department of Defense could seek compensation and suspend payment for products and services already delivered, and the people responsible for submitting the counterfeit offer could be at risk of being criminally prosecuted. Concealing information about issues such as the lack of use of subcontractors from disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs), environmental pollution, and other types of similar problems can also lead to federal accusations of fraud. Depending on the specific topic (or problems) involved, contractor personnel may also face charges under other federal criminal laws. At The Criminal Defense Firm, our federal defense team is comprised entirely of high-level attorneys whose practices are dedicated exclusively to federal matters.
Several members of our team are former attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice. UU. Attorneys and our attorneys have successfully represented clients in federal cases in more than 45 states across the country.
While defense contract fraud is undoubtedly a very real problem for the Department of Defense, many defense contractor fraud investigations are wrong. Our attorneys can quickly evaluate the merits of the government's case against your company, and we can offer a strategic defense designed to protect you and your company to the greatest extent possible. If you're in the sights of the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice, you don't have time to lose. Contact The Criminal Defense Firm now to get started with a free and confidential consultation.
Complete the fields or call 866-603-4540 to speak with a criminal defense attorney and receive a free case evaluation. Boyle also said nothing about whether the defense of government contractors extends to contractors who make service contracts42 and how it could be extended to such contractors. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit) expanded the defense of government contractors to immunize some contractors whose non-contractual liability stems from the fulfillment of service contracts. Contractors and contractor employees perform countless tasks on behalf of the government, including playing an integral role in U. Given the different results at McMahon and Bentzlin, the viability of defending government contractors against manufacturing defect claims is uncertain.
The District Court for the Central District of California considered the defendant contractor's argument that, in addition to having immunity from liability under Boyle's defense as a government contractor, the FTCA exception for combat activities prevailed over all tort lawsuits against him. However, the Saleh rule provides contractors with greater protection than the Koohi rule, in a sense, by protecting contractors against any claim under specific circumstances, regardless of the situation of the person filing the claim (i). Contractors must ensure that their information systems meet required security standards or risk being disqualified from Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. Basing its decision on the FTCA's discretionary function exception, as did the Supreme Court in the Boyle case, the district court held that contractors enjoy immunity from tort liability when sophisticated weapons designed exclusively for combat use give rise to a manufacturing defect lawsuit against a contractor based on state liability law.
The court found that the government contractor's defense was applicable and upheld the summary judgment handed down by the district court in favor of the contractor. The two preferred defenses based on the FTCA that contractors seem to invoke most often when defending themselves against tort are the government contractor's defense and the exception. for combat activities. While the prohibitions of the False Claims Act are extremely broad, most federal investigations aimed at defense contractors focus on a number of common allegations.
