在纽约联邦地区法院必须了reconsider part of its decision to dismiss a former employee whistleblower’s complaint that an AECOM unit fraudulently billed the U.S. Army under a $1.9-billion contract it held for maintenance and support in Afghanistan, the U.S. appeals court in New York ruled Nov. 19.
The contract was held by AECOM's management services business, which worked for federal clients but已经售出2020年初，一个私募股权财团，现在是一家名为Amentum的独立公司。
At issue is whether the fraud claimed by the whistleblower, Hassan Foreman, a former AECOM finance supervisor, was “material” under the federal False Claims Act—since the company was not penalized by the Army for thealleged fraudulent actions, which he claimed included improper billing and purchasing.
The appeals court said the district court, in two 2020 dismissals of the claim, improperly used a document that had not been introduced in court previously to analyze “materiality” in the whistleblower’s complaint.
“In reaching this conclusion, the district court considered multiple reports outside of the complaint on the basis that they were either incorporated by reference into, or integral to, the complaint,” the appeals court said.
Specifically, the court said it was improper for the lower court to consider a September 2014 Defense Contract Audit Agency report, which was used to conclude that the former AECOM uni's alleged false representations about its labor billing practices, person-hour utilization rate and tracking of government property were not material to the case, because the government was aware of the company’s violation of its contract but continued to pay the contractor and extended its contract multiple times.
上诉法院说，法庭记录中没有证据表明政府对前部单位的违反劳动账单有实际了解。
上诉法院说：“因此，为了确定工头是否充分恳求实质性，政府对AECOM所谓的违反劳动帐单的实际了解。”上诉法院说：“我们无法得出结论。calling into question its 'actual knowledge.’"
The appeals court cited evidence to support both sides of the materiality issue, but in the end concluded that the whistleblower sufficiently showed his claims were material based on the unit's labor billing practices.
The whistleblower’s claim dates to 2016. He was terminated by AECOM in 2015 after raising his concerns to the firm.
上诉法院支持所有其他发现的lower court.
AECOM发言人说，根据该单位的购买协议，新父母“承担与该业务部门有关或引起的负债”。“这意味着Amentum对这项诉讼负有全部责任。AECOM不参与辩护，对结果不承担任何责任。任何政府机构在此问题上没有任何政府机构对AECOM的诉讼。”
A spokesperson for Amentum declined comment on the suit.
