Articles Tagged with attorney for government contract fraud

When qui tam cases under the False Claims Act (FCA) are first filed, they are to remain under seal for 60 days. During this time, the case is secret. The defendant is not even served yet, so it likely does not know there is a suit filed against it unless there are quiet rumblings or leaks. During this 60-day period, the government is given an opportunity to investigate the allegations and decide whether to join the suit or not. Once the government makes its decision, the case is unsealed. In certain instances, this is when the defendant is served. However, in many cases, the seal is partially lifted and the defendant is served prior to the whistleblower case being made public.

The truth of the matter, though, is that a qui tam case is never under seal for just 60 days. The FCA, the government can ask for extensions of the seal period if they can show it is for good cause. This happens regularly and continuously to the point where many qui tam cases remain confidential for years.

How Long Do Qui Tam Cases Remain Under Seal?

The government cash2is, in many ways, a large business.  Given its size and the breadth of its duties, the government relies on individuals and companies for a wide range of goods and services.  However, because of the government’s special position, government contracts often contain clauses unique to agreements between the government and private entities.  When contractors knowingly violate these clauses, they commit fraud.  Government contract fraud is ultimately a fraud on all taxpayers and a way of stealing from already strained coffers needed for important services like education, health care, and national defense.  Our government contract fraud law firm partners with whistleblowers to fight these wrongs.

$11.38 Million Settlement in Case Alleging Government Contract Fraud and Violation of Price Reduction Clause

On May 31, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a press release announcing that Deloitte Consulting LLP (“Deloitte”) has agreed to pay $11.38 million to settle claims it violated a pricing clause in its federal contracts.  According to the government, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) awarded Deloitte a contract in 2000 pursuant to which the consulting company was to provide information technology services.  Under the agreement, if Deloitte offered a lower price to specific commercial customers during the term of the contract, it was also required to reduce to price the company charged the government.  In a lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act, the government alleged that Deloitte violated the price reduction clause between 2006 and 2012 and charged the government more than comparable commercial clients.  It is important to note that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.