JMEN
                      Office of Inspector General
WHEN  GOOD
MONEY  GOES  BAD
True Stories of Contract Fraud at EPA
                                     f ••
                                    IL
              www.epa.gov/oig

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                               Office of Inspector General
                         "Catalyst for Improving the  Environment"
WHO WE ARE
The Office of Inspector General is an independent office within EPA that helps the Agency protect the
environment in a more efficient and cost effective manner. We consist of auditors, program analysts,
investigators, and others with extensive expertise.

WHAT WE  DO
We perform audits, evaluations, and investigations of EPA and its contractors, grantees, and recipients
of other Federal funds to promote economy and efficiency, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and
abuse. We also maintain the DIG Hotline.

WHY WE DO IT
We strive to serve as a catalyst for improving the environment. By helping the Agency operate more
economically, effectively, and efficiently, we contribute to improved environmental quality and human
health. We strive to provide solutions to problems that ultimately result in making America a cleaner
and healthier place.

OUR MISSION
Add value by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within EPA and the delivery of environ-
mental programs. Inspire public confidence  by preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in
Agency operations and  protecting the integrity of EPA programs.
              "There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more
                easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government."

                                       Benjamin Franklin

-------
WHEN   GOOD
MONEY   GOES   BAD
True  Stories of Contract Fraud at EPA
Introduction
In an effort to provide you with tools to identify areas that may be of
concern or worth looking into, this booklet was designed to provide an
overview of general fraud indicators as well as highlight some specific
indicators related to contract fraud. To put a face to what is often seen as
a victimless crime and to highlight the impact of fraud, included are some
real-world examples of contract fraud investigations conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Office of
Investigations.
                                                                  --
    WHEN GOOD MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT FRAUD AT EPA

-------
What Can  I  Do to Avoid Trouble ?
              • Report any irregularities early.
              • Correct any audit findings promptly.
              • Have a system of checks and balances.
              • Create and follow established procedures.

If you are a federal employee, you are duty bound to report Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Corruption under the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

"Employees Shall Disclose Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Corruption to Appropriate Authorities" 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(l 1)

We are here to assist you. We want you to succeed.

General Fraud  Indicators

General fraud indictors are applicable to many areas and not exclusively tied to contracts. The list presented below
is not meant to be all-inclusive and should not limit the consideration of other factors. Remember—if it doesn't
pass the "smell" test, something may be amiss.

              Q Missing, weak, or inadequate internal controls
              Q Management override of key internal controls
              Q Lack of written policies and procedures
              Q Overly complex organizational structure
              Q High turnover rate
              Q Reassignment of personnel
              Q Termination of key personnel
              Q "Missing" files, reports, data, and invoices (both electronic and paper)
              Q Photocopies of documents where it is difficult to detect alterations
              Q Missing approval signatures
              Q Lack of separation of duties
              Q Discrepancies in handwriting
              Q Delays in production of requested documentation
     WHEN GOOD  MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF  CONTRACT  FRAUD AT EPA

-------
Cost Mischarging and  Defective  Pricing Schemes

Definition:
       Improper allocation of costs to a contract or charging items at a higher rate than allowed.

Indicators:
       • Labor or materials costs inconsistent with the progress being made on the contract
       • Timecards completed by someone other than the employee
       • Failure to update cost and pricing data when costs have decreased
       • Indications of falsification or alteration of supporting data
                                                            FRAUD  CASE  STUDIES
Contractor Enters into $6.5 Million  Settlement
A Cambridge, Massachusetts, contractor entered into a  $6.5 million settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Division, to settle claims that they overtoiled the federal government on
its contracts.

For a period of 10 years, the company inflated costs it charged to the federal government contracts by improperly
shifting costs uniquely associated with its commercial contracts onto federal contracts. The Defense Contract Audit
Agency conducted an analysis of the costs charged to federal contracts and estimated $13.9 million was overbilled to
numerous government agencies, including EPA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. The EPA
work involved Superfund and engineering activities.

This investigation was conducted jointly with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
     WHEN  GOOD MONEY GOES  BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT FRAUD AT EPA

-------
FRAUD  CASE  STUDIES
Contractor Agrees to Pay $424,270 to Settle Mischarging Allegations
While admitting no wrongdoing, a Fairfax, Virginia, contractor agreed with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Civil Division, to pay
$424,270 to settle  allegations that it overtoiled costs on its Government contracts.

The investigation found indications that for approximately 8 years, the company overtoiled for computer services and
reproduction cost to numerous federal contracts awarded by EPA, the Department of Defense, and the  Department of
Energy. This overtoiling occurred because the company billed estimated rates that were in excess of the actual costs for
computer services and reproduction costs.


Contractor Settles Civil Action for  $15,OOO Regarding False Claims Case

A DeSoto, Texas, company and its owners entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Northern District  of Texas in which they agreed to pay $15,000 to settle a civil false claims case.

The government contended that the company submitted  a $6,200 invoice to EPA for work that was not authorized by EPA
nor performed  by the company. EPA subsequently paid the invoice. Prior to reaching this settlement, the company and  its
owners were debarred from government contracting for 3 years.

In addition to the  civil settlement reached with the federal government, both owners were indicted by the State of Texas.
For defrauding  EPA of $6,200, they were each charged with theft, a felony under Texas law.
Bribery and Kickback Schemes

Definition:
       Giving or receiving a thing of value for the sole purpose of influencing an official act or a business
       decision.

Indicators:
       • An overly friendly relationship between government employees and contractors and/or among
         contractors who may otherwise be considered competitors.
       • Excessive, new-found wealth may also be a clue that a bribe or kickback has been accepted.
       • Contracting employee has an undisclosed business.
     WHEN  GOOD MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT FRAUD  AT EPA

-------
                                                               FRAUD  CASE  STUDIES
Subcontractor Kickback Scheme
The president, a former project manager, and a former site
foreman of a subcontractorwere sentenced in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern  District of Pennsylvania on a con-
spiracy charge. The president of the subcontractor was
sentenced to 60 months of probation, the first 6 months
to  be served under house arrest, and  ordered to pay a
$5,000 fine. The former project manager was sentenced to
6 months in prison,followed by Gyears supervised release,
and was ordered to pay a $32,382 fine. The former site fore-
man was sentenced to 60 months of probation and ordered
to pay a $32,382 fine.

A contractor was awarded a contract by EPA to serve as
the prime contractor in the clean up of  the Berkley Prod-
ucts Superfund site in Denver, Pennsylvania. The prime
contractor awarded a subcontract for the construction
of a landfill cap at the Berkley Products site. The project
manager for the prime  contractor was  responsible for
overseeing the work performed by the subcontractor. The
project manager solicited kickbacks in the amount of ap-
proximately $129,531 fromthe president of the subcontrac-
tor, in exchange for his certifying that the work performed
by the subcontractorwas completed in a satisfactory man-
ner. The  project manager for the prime contractor, in turn,
kicked back approximately half of all money he received
to the former project manager for the subcontractor, who,
in turn, provided half of that money to the former site fore-
man  of the subcontractor. They each received $32,382 of
the kickback money. The project manager for the prime
contractor provided the subcontractor with phony invoic-
es in the amount of the  kickbacks to disguise the illegal
payments. For his part in the scheme, the project manager
was sentenced to 33 months in prison, followed by 3 years
supervised release, and was ordered to pay a $64,766 fine
and $30,536 in restitution.

Previously, each individual pled  guilty to one count of
conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and one
count of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Ser-
vice (IRS). In addition to the sentences imposed above, the
subcontractor paid $113,711 to the IRS, which represented
amounts  due  because the subcontractor had previously
deducted the  kickback payments as business expenses.
The subcontract project manager paid $12,177 to the IRS
because  he failed to report the income  he had received
fromthe  kickback payments. The subcontract site foreman
also  paid $21,527 to the IRS for having under reported his
income.

     WHEN GOOD MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT FRAUD AT EPA

-------
 FRAUD CASE  STUDIES
U.S. Virgin  Islands  Officials found  Guilty  in  $1.4  million
Bribery and Kickback  Scheme
Following a 2-week trial,  a  federal  jury in  St. Thomas
found a former Commissioner of the U.S.  Virgin  Islands
Department of Planning and Natural Resources  (DPNR)
guilty of demanding and accepting bribes and obstructing
justice. The same jury also found a former  Commissioner
of the Department of Property and Procurement guilty of
demanding and accepting  bribes in a $1.4  million bribery
and kickback scheme.

The former commissioners  were  charged with demanding
and  accepting a  series  of  bribes and  kickbacks  in
exchange  for  awarding  approximately $1.4 million  in
government contracts and  then authorizing more  than $1
million  in payments on these contracts, despite  little or
no work having been performed. They were also charged
with obstructing justice, stemming from attempts to thwart
the criminal investigation into the underlying  bribery and
kickback scheme.  One commissioner was sentenced to
9 years in prison to be followed by 3 years of probation.
He was ordered to be held  liable, along with several other
defendants, for a  monetary judgment in the approximate
amount  of  $1.1 million. The other  commissioner  was
sentenced to 7 years in prison to be followed by  3 years
of probation. He was also ordered to be held  liable, along
with several other defendants, for a monetary judgment in
the amount of $960,482.
Four individuals, including three other former U.S. Virgin
Islands government officials,  pleaded guilty to violating
the federal bribery statute, honest services mail fraud,
and structuring currency transactions in furtherance of
the underlying  bribery and  kickback scheme. The three
defendants were  sentenced to prison - ranging from 21
months to  4 years - and ordered to pay  restitution in the
approximate  amount of $1.1 million. In addition, a former
DPNR Director  of Permits pleaded  guilty to conspiring to
obstruct the  criminal investigation into  the  bribery  and
kickback scheme.

The four individuals and others formed a sham business
and used the entity, as well as other companies, to seek
and  be awarded  at least seven  government contracts
valued at approximately $1.4 million. The contracts were
authorized  and awarded by  the  former commissioner.
Once the contract proceeds were negotiated, the officials
kept a portion of  the illicit proceeds for themselves  and
paid cash bribes and kickbacks totaling between $300,000
and $350,000 to  various government officials.

This investigation was conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the  Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation
Division, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Inspector General.
     WHEN GOOD MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT FRAUD AT  EPA

-------
                                                                FRAUD  CASE  STUDIES
Pleas Entered  in Bid Rigging  Case
(This case is an example of both a kickback and mischarging scheme.)
In U.S. District Courtforthe District of New Jersey, a Laurel
Springs, New Jersey company, as well as its owner and
a former employee of a prime contractor, were charged
and pled guilty in  a  bid-rigging scheme in connection
with subcontracts  for  wastewater treatment supplies
and services at two Superfund  sites in  New Jersey.
A Canadian company was also charged and pled guilty for
its role in the scheme.

The New Jersey company and its owner  pled guilty to
rigging bids at  the Federal Creosote  Superfund  site in
Manville, New Jersey. The owner also pled guilty to one
count of conspiracy to defraud EPAatthe Federal Creosote
site and to defraud another company atthe Diamond Alkali
Superfund site  in Newark, New Jersey. As part of  the
conspiracy, the owner participated in a false invoicing and
kickback scheme. He also pled guilty to filing false income
tax returns.

A former employee of a prime contractor  pled guilty to
rigging bids atthe  Federal Creosote site. In addition, he
pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud EPA at
the Federal Creosote site and to defraud another company
at the Diamond Alkali  Superfund site by participating in  a
false invoicing and kickbackscheme. He also pled guilty to
one count of aiding the  New Jersey company's owner in
filing a false income tax return.
The  co-conspirators  thwarted  the  competitive bidding
process and defrauded EPA. The owners of the New Jersey
company provided more than $26,000 in  kickbacks to  an
employee of a prime contractor and more than $385,000 to
his former supervisor in exchange for their assistance in
allocating certain subcontracts to the Canadian company.
The kickbacks were in the form of checks, cash, cruises,
home renovations, boat  trailers,  and  airline tickets.  In
addition, the employee and  a former supervisor inflated
invoices  and  accepted   kickbacks  from  three  other
subcontractors atthe  Superfund sites.

The Canadian company pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud
EPA atthe Federal Creosote site by inflating the prices it
charged to a prime contractor and  paying  kickbacks to
employees of that contractor. The company was given
confidential bid information that it used to inflate invoices
to cover almost $1.3 million in kickbacks  to employees of
the  prime contractor  in exchange for their assistance in
steering subcontracts to them. The kickbacks were in the
form of money wire transfers, cruises for senior officials,
various entertainment tickets, and home entertainment
electronics.   As  part of the fraudulent scheme, this
company and its co-conspirators also included amounts it
kept for itself in the inflated invoices.

This case was conducted with the Internal Revenue Service  Criminal
Investigation Division.
     WHEN GOOD  MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT  FRAUD AT EPA

-------
What to do if You Suspect Fraudulent Activity,
Waste,  or Abuse

     v  DO contact the OIG Hotline.
     v  DO discuss your concerns with the OIG.
     v  DO seek answers to your questions in the normal course of business.
     v  DO cooperate with the OIG and expect to be contacted and involved.
     A  DON'T "tip off" subjects of actual or pending investigation.
     A  DON'T feel compelled to "prove" a case or intent.
     A  DON'T "stop" your normal course of business unless otherwise directed.
    WHEN GOOD MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT FRAUD AT EPA

-------
    Report  Suspected Fraud Activity to Our Office


             You can Place a Telephone Call to Our 24-hour Hotline
                              (888) 546-8740

                              You Can Mail Us
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Inspector General Hotline (2443)
                        1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                           Washington, DC 20460

                             You Can E-mail Us
                           OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

                    Or You Can Contact Our Offices Directly
                        Northeastern Resource Center
                               Arlington, VA
                              (703) 347-8740

                          Eastern Resource Center
                                Atlanta, GA
                              (404)562-9857

                          Central Resource Center
                                Chicago, IL
                              (312)353-2507

                          Western Resource Center
                             San Francisco, CA
                              (415) 947-4507
WHEN GOOD MONEY GOES BAD • TRUE STORIES OF CONTRACT FRAUD AT EPA

-------

-------