1.866.601.5518

720.941.7200

Email This Page Email This Page Print This Page Print This Page

Federal False Claims Attorneys

Effective False Claims Defense Attorneys – Avoid Stiff Penalties 

 

 The consequences of losing on a federal False Claims Act charge can cripple your business and reputation.  As a contractor, you have rights. Knowing how to respond to allegations and cooperate with investigations is very important to the outcome. Not only are you charged with fraud but the cost of a judgment against you can be substantial.  The government contract attorneys government contract civil false claimsat the law firm of Theodore Watson & Associates, LLC  provide defense and litigation support for federal contractors that are subjected to investigations or allegations of fraud, False Claims Act violation and defective pricing disputes.

A summary of our government contract services include:

  • Litigation defense
  • Appeals
  • False Claims Act defense
  • Defective pricing
  • Policy and compliance
  • Acting on your behalf with the agency
  • Billing disputes
  • Cost accounting guidance & Services
  • Contractor defense

 

 

For Defense and guidance through an investigation or allegations Call Our Government Contract Civil False Claims Experts Today at 1-866-601-5518.

 

Industries

Our defense attorneys are available to help federal contractors avoid false claims act violations in several industries including: medical supplies, defense weapon systems, aerospace, aircraft supplies, construction, IT and manufacturers.

 

Get Immediate Help to Avoid Common Mistakes

Defense contractor fraud remains one of the most active areas of false claims litigation under the Federal False Claims Act. Billions of dollars have already been recovered from defense contractors, largely as a result of qui tam whistle-blowers acting under the Federal False Claims Act. The government contract attorneys at Watson & Associates can assist companies that need assistance in avoiding some of the most common mistakes that violate the False Claims Act or defective pricing regulations.  See example of defective pricing investigation.

The following are some of the common mistakes made. if you are subject to any of them , contact our false claims defense lawyers for immediate help. Below is a description of some of the more common ways in which defense contractors have tried to defraud the federal government:

  • Cross-Charging: Cross-charging has been one of the most common types of defense procurement fraud. Cross-charging occurs when a defense contractor improperly shifts costs and expenses from one defense contract to another in order to boost its profits. The United States typically awards one of two types of contracts in defense procurement: (1) the “fixed-price” contract; and (2) the “cost-plus contract.” In a “fixed-price” contract, the government pays the contractor a set price for the delivery of a weapons system or other product, no matter how much it costs the contractor to produce. In a “cost-plus” contract, the federal government pays the contractor a set price plus a percentage of the contractor’s costs for producing the weapons system or other product.. This illegal cross-charging is frequently accomplished by altering records to shift

 

  • Improper Product Substitution: Defense contracts frequently specify that the contractor use a particular grade, type or quality of product or parts. There are often additional requirements that the parts be new and that those parts be made in the United States. If you engage in this activity without the permission of the government’s contracting officer, you can violate the Federal False Claims Act for improper product substitution. Contact our False Claims defense attorneys for immediate help or call us at 1-866-601-5518.

 

  • Improper Cost Allocation: In many forms of business, including defense contracting, the key to getting a lucrative private or government contract is often the ability to deliver the product or service at a price less than the competition. Defense contractors that provide products and services to the United States military also sell those products, in some form or another, to government and private businesses around the world. One way that some defense contractors have attempted to secure lucrative contracts from private businesses or governments outside the United States is to improperly allocate or shift costs from those contracts onto the “cost-plus” contracts they have with the United States government. As a result of this scheme, the United States ends up paying for the costs that should be paid by these private businesses or foreign governments.

 

  • Substandard Products or Services: Due to the volume and complexity of the weapons systems, equipment and products the government purchases for national defense, it is near impossible for the United States Military to perform a quality check on each item it purchases. In many cases, the government relies upon the defense contractor to provide weapons systems, equipment and products that perform as promised in the contract. Although there can be cases of honest mistakes, there also can be instances where the defense contract knew, or was reckless in not knowing, and the products they were delivering would not perform as promised. Such worthless or substandard products can have devastating impact on the men and women of the military that use these items. Moreover, delivering worthless or substandard products or services can, in certain circumstances, violate the Federal False Claims Act.

 

  • Inflation or Costs and Charges: In “cost-plus” contracts, the government pays the defense contractor a set price plus a percentage of the contractor’s costs for producing the weapons system or other product. One common form of fraud has been for the contractor to improperly inflate their costs and charges to increase the revenue the company earns from the government. This form of fraud is often accomplished through inflated time records, inflated equipment and materials costs and fake purchase orders.

 

  • Violations of the Truth-In-Negotiations Act (TINA): Many of the weapons systems and equipment used by the United States Military are highly specialized and complex. Often times, there is only one company in the world producing that particular weapons system or equipment. The government, therefore, has no choice but to purchase this weapons system or equipment from this single-source supplier. The Truth In Negotiations Act (TINA) attempts to prevent this problem by requiring defense contractors to honestly disclose all relevant information about its costs to the government in these types of single-source, no-bid contracts. Having an experience government contract attorney can avoid some of the common mistakes made. Inflating costs and expenses can be a violation of the Federal False Claims Act.

 

Develop effective internal policies. To prevent allegations of False Claim Act violations, our government contract attorneys assist companies in developing sound internal compliance policies that focus on:

  • Documentation
  • Effective checklists
  • Ethics compliance
  • Proper disclosure

 

Proper fraud and false claim defense is essential. After you become aware of a fraud allegation, you should quickly retain legal counsel.  The government quickly seeks evidence, launches investigations in your cost accounting and business information and can make your environment very miserable.  Having a sound government contract law defense attorney on side can create advantages that include:

  • Attorney client privileged communication
  • Proper guidance and disclosure
  • Proper application of evidence rules

 

Special counsel assistance in criminal prosecutions. Oftentimes, criminal defense attorneys need help when applying government contracting regulations. Theodore Watson & Associates provide advice and assistance to companies and attorneys across the country faced with False Claims Act violations, defective pricing disputes and fraud claims from the government.

 

Nationwide Representation

If you are involved in a federal investigation and need a government contract law defense attorney to  protect your rights, Theodore Watson & Associates provides assistance to contractors in virtually every state including Denver, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska, New York, Los Angeles California, San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Denver, Colorado Springs, Utah, California, Oklahoma, Ohio, Maine, Florida, Texas, Nevada, Maryland, Louisiana, Las Vegas, Georgia, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Washington, Mississippi, Tennessee, Tampa, Miami, Virgin Islands, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Delaware, Connecticut, Arizona, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Montana.

 

Contact us for Immediate Defense

For immediate help in a False Claims Act case, contact the government contract law defense attorneys at Theodore Watson & Associates or call 1-866-601-5518 or 720-941-7200.

Attorneys:  Joanne Rupprecht  Theodore Watson, Lorraine Stark John Dougherty

Recent Supreme Court Decision In False Claims Act Case.

 

Other Relevant False Claims Act Decisions ( from wikipedia.org)

In a 2000 case, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000)[7], the United States Supreme Court held that a private individual may not bring suit in federal court on behalf of the United States against a State (or state agency) under the FCA. In Stevens, the Supreme Court also endorsed the “partial assignment” approach to qui tam relator standing (law) to sue, which had previously been articulated by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and is an exception to the general legal rule for standing.[8]

In a 2007 case, Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, the United States Supreme Court considered several issues relating to the “original source” exception to the FCA’s public-disclosure bar. The Court held that (1) the original source requirement of the FCA provision setting for the original-source exception to the public-disclosure bar on federal-court jurisdiction is jurisdictional; (2) the statutory phrase “information on which the allegations are based” refers to the relator’s allegations and not the publicly disclosed allegations; the terms “allegations” is not limited to the allegations in the original complaint, but includes, at a minimum, the allegations in the original complaint as amended; (3) relator’s knowledge with respect to the pondcrete fell short of the direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based required for him to qualify as an original source; and (4) the government’s intervention did not provide an independent basis of jurisdiction with respect to the relator.

In a 2008 case, Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a false claim had to be presented directly to the Federal government, or if it merely needed to be paid with government money, such as a false claim by a subcontractor to a prime contractor. The Court found that the claim need not be presented directly to the government, but that the false statement must be made with the intention that it will be relied upon by the government in paying, or approving payment of, a claim.[9] The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 reversed the Court’s decision and made the types of fraud to which the False Claims Act applies more explicit.[10]

In a 2009 case, United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York,[11] the United States Supreme Court considered whether, when the government declines to intervene or otherwise actively participate in a “qui tam” action under the False Claims Act, the United States is a “party” to the suit for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) (which requires that a notice of appeal in a federal civil action generally be filed within 30 days after entry of a judgment or order from which the appeal is taken). The Court held that when the United States has declined to intervene in a privately initiated FCA action, it is not a “party” for FRAP 4 purposes, and therefore, petitioner’s appeal filed after 30 days was untimely.