United States of America v. IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.

Baltimore, Maryland, commercial litigation lawyers represented the Defendant on a False Claims Act action.

The U.S. alleged that on November 4, 2015, IAP undertook the performance of a contract awarded by the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, Maryland (the Contract). The Contract, among other things, required IAP to maintain and support a certain military aircraft, which included the repair, replacement, and replenishment of items used in the repair and maintenance of a specific military aircraft – the Boeing E-6B. The Contract further required that IAP ensure that sources for the Boeing E-6B aircraft material were Federal Aviation Administration or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) certified. In particular, the latter certification attests that the part, in this case the BACB30LU bolt procured by IAP and billed to the Navy, adhered to the manufacturer’s original design specifications and quality standards.

The Contract also required that IAP screen incoming material against purchase contract requirements and have a procedure for the control of non-conforming material and ensure subcontractor performance, including regarding product quality. The bolt procured by IAP, and identified as a BACB30LU bolt, was used to fasten parts of the E-6B aircraft and was important to ensuring the safety of the aircraft. Between January 1, 2018, and October 26, 2019, IAP knowingly submitted claims for payment to the U.S. Navy as if all contract requirements were met. But, in fact, it provided and billed to the U.S. Navy BACB30LU bolts that were not in conformity with the original equipment manufacturers’ design specifications and quality standards in that the bolts were made from noncompliant metal stock, the head and shank of the bolts were machined instead of forged, the head fillet was not cold worked, and the threads were machined instead of rolled, reducing the life span of the bolts.

Enacted during the Civil War, the False Claims Act is the government’s primary civil tool to combat fraud and abuse in federal programs and procurement.

“Companies that do business with the United States are expected to meet exacting standards, especially when the safety and readiness of our service members are at stake,” Hayes said. “As this settlement makes clear, supplying materials that do not conform to required design specifications and quality standards – while seeking payment as if they did – is unacceptable. This office will continue to use the False Claims Act to hold contractors accountable and to protect the integrity of federal procurement and the interests of the United States.”

“Contract fraud is not a victimless crime; it is a direct threat to our national security and the safety of our warfighters,” Dillard said. “DCIS along with the Department of Justice and our investigative partners will continue to utilize all available tools, including civil settlements, to safeguard the resources of the Department of Defense and ensure that our men and women in uniform receive the quality products and services they deserve.”

“Ensuring the integrity of the defense supply chain is essential to protecting our most sensitive national security assets and the safety of the personnel who rely on them,” Gross said. “This investigation underscores the serious risk posed when contractors compromise the quality of equipment used on Navy platforms. NCIS, in close coordination with our partners, remains committed to holding those individuals accountable and safeguarding both operational readiness and the lives of those who serve.”

U.S. Attorney Hayes commended DCIS Special Agent Samuel Peyton and the NCIS agents for their work in the investigation. Ms. Hayes also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Tarra DeShields who handled this case.

Settled for $810,821.65.