Top bar

About POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database (FCMD)

The government awards contracts to companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations. In the absence of a centralized federal database listing instances of misconduct, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is providing such data. We believe that it will lead to improved contracting decisions and public access to information about how the government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money each year on goods and services. Report an instance of misconduct »

SAIC

United States v. Science Applications International Corp. (False and/or Fraudulent Representations)

Date: 09/03/2004 (date filed)

Misconduct Type: Government Contract Fraud

Enforcement Agency: NRC

Contracting Party: NRC

Court Type: Civil

Amount: $78

Disposition: Judgment Against Defendant

Synopsis: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission filed suit against SAIC, alleging false and/or fraudulent representations to the effect that SAIC was providing unbiased services to the NRC. The NRC claimed that at the time the NRC hired SAIC to formulate guidelines on recycling radioactive waste, they were unaware SAIC had other consulting and contractual relationships that created a conflict of interest, which led to SAIC submitting false and/or fraudulent bills and other statements to the government in violation of the False Claims Act. In July 2008, a jury found that SAIC knowingly submitted 60 false claims for payment and knowingly made 17 false statements to get claims paid on two NRC contracts and awarded the United States $1.97 million in damages (tripled to $5.9 million under the False Claims Act). The jury also found SAIC breached a 1992 contract with the NRC and awarded an additional $78 in damages. The court also ordered SAIC to pay civil penalties of $7,500 for each of the 77 false claims and statements (for a total of $577,500). In December 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld the judgment as to the government's breach of contract claim but vacated the judgment as to FCA liability due to an erroneous jury instruction.