Skip to content

Judicial Watch • DOJvsUSIS

DOJvsUSIS

DOJvsUSIS

Page 1: DOJvsUSIS

Category:

Number of Pages:25

Date Created:January 22, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 08, 2014

Tags:DOJ, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT ALABAMA 
NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES AMERICA rel. BLAKE PERCIVAL 
 Plaintiff,  Civil Action No. 11-CV-527-WKW  

U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.,) 
Defendant. 
UNITED STATES COMPLAINT (False Claims Act; Breach Contract) 
Plaintiff, the United States America (United States), its undersigned counsel, represents follows: The United States brings this civil action recover treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act, U.S.C.  3729-33 (FCA), and recover damages and other monetary relief for breach contract.  This action arises from false statements and claims that Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, Inc. (USIS) knowingly presented to, caused presented to, the United States and the United States Office Personnel Management (OPM) related background investigations that were not reviewed accordance with the requirements the parties contracts, violation the FCA and the common law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the United States claims brought under the False Claims Act, U.S.C.  3279, seq., pursuant U.S.C.  3730 and 3732.  
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction entertain the common law causes action under 
U.S.C.  1345 and 1367(a). This Court has personal jurisdiction over USIS pursuant U.S.C.  3732(a) because USIS transacts business and found this district. Venue proper this district pursuant U.S.C.  3732(a), and under 
U.S.C.  1391(b) and 1395(a), because USIS transacts business this District. 

II. PARTIES 
Plaintiff the United States America, acting behalf the United States Office Personnel Management. 
Relator Blake Percival United States citizen and resident Alabama who was employed USIS from 2001 through June 2011.  From January 2011 until the end his employment with USIS, Mr. Percival was the Director Fieldwork Services USIS. 
Defendant USIS company organized pursuant the laws Delaware with its principal place business Falls Church, VA.  USIS employs over 2,500 credentialed field investigators and other employees who work all fifty states, including Alabama. 

III. BACKGROUND The Federal False Claims Act 
The False Claims Act, amended the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act 2009 (FERA), Pub. 111-21,  4(f), 123 Stat. 1617, 1625 (2009), provides pertinent part that person liable the United States government for three times the amount damages the government sustains plus penalty the person knowingly presents, causes presented, false fraudulent claim for payment approval. U.S.C.  3729(a)(1)(A) (2009). Prior the FERA amendments, this provision provided that person liable the United States 

government the person knowingly presents, causes presented, officer employee the United States Government[a] false fraudulent claim for payment approval. U.S.C.  3729(a)(1) (2006). amended FERA, the FCA also makes person liable the United States government for three times the amount damages which the government sustains, plus penalty, the person knowingly makes, uses, causes made used, false record statement material false fraudulent claim. U.S.C.  3729(a)(1)(B) (2009). Prior the FERA amendments, this provision provided that person liable the United States government the person knowingly makes, uses, causes made used, false record statement get false fraudulent claim paid approved the Government. U.S.C.  3729(a)(2) (2006). 

10. 
The FCA, amended, defines the term claim mean any request demand, whether under contract otherwise, for money property and whether not the United States has title the money property, that (i) presented officer, employee, agent the United States; (ii) made contractor, grantee, other recipient, the money property drawn down used the Governments behalf advance Government program interest, and the United States Government (i) provides has provided any portion the money property requested demanded; (ii) will reimburse such contractor, grantee, other recipient for any portion the money property which requested demanded. U.S.C.  3729(b)(2)(A) (2009). relevant this civil action, the FERA amendments clarified, but did not substantially change, the definition claim. U.S.C.  3729(b)(2)(A) (2006). 

11. 
The FCA defines the terms knowing and knowingly mean that person, with respect information: (1) has actual knowledge the information; (2) acts deliberate ignorance the truth falsity the information; (3) acts reckless disregard the truth falsity the information. U.S.C.  3729(b)(1)(A) (2009).  The FCA further provides that no proof specific intent defraud required. U.S.C.  3729(b) (2006); U.S.C.  3729(b)(1)(B) (2009). 

12. 
The United States alleges that, from least March 2008 through September 2012, USIS violated the foregoing provisions the FCA seeking payment for background investigations purportedly completed accordance with the requirements its contracts with OPM, when knew the contractually required quality review had not occurred those investigations. Due USISs fraudulent conduct, OPM accepted and paid for background investigations would not otherwise have accepted paid for had known the truth. USISs Contractual Relationship with OPM 

13. 
OPMs Federal Investigative Service (FIS) responsible for performing background investigations current prospective federal employees contractors for variety federal agencies. OPM conducts background investigations for over one hundred federal agencies, including the Department Justice, Department Homeland Security, Department Health and Human Services, Department Transportation, Department Treasury, and Department Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency. 

14. average, OPM conducts over 2.2 million background investigations per year. 
15. 
While some the background investigations are performed OPM staff, OPM also contracts with various private companies perform the fieldwork the investigations for OPM. 

16. 
USIS one several companies that OPM has contracted with over the years conduct the fieldwork the background investigations.  USIS has been conducting background investigations for OPM under government contracts since 1996.   

17. 
During the relevant time period, USIS entered into two separate fieldwork contracts related background investigations:  (1) Contract Number OPM04-06-00013; and (2) OPM15-110-C-0015 (collectively, the Fieldwork Contracts).  USIS also entered into support services contract, Contract No. OPM04-06-00004 (the Support Contract). The 2006 Fieldwork Contract 

18. 
The first fieldwork contract issue here, Contract Number OPM04-06-00013, was executed with effective date July 2006.  Under that contract, USIS was responsible for conducting the investigatory fieldwork applicants seeking new continued employment with federal agencies one their contractors.  Depending upon the type investigation issue, the contractually required fieldwork might entail conducting interviews the applicant and/or friends family the applicant, conducting educational employment records checks, running law checks, and/or running check the applicants credit history.  Background investigators prepare Reports Investigations, ROIs, documenting the results their interviews and/or record checks applicant.   

19. 
The contract also required that USIS conduct quality review each ROI comprising background investigation, also referred case, before submitting the completed case OPM for processing and payment.  Specifically, Section C.6.1.2 the contract, titled Contractor Quality Control  Compliance with Quality Standards, stated follows: 

The contractor shall conduct pre-submission quality review all OPM products and shall maintain inspection and evaluation system ensure all investigative work products and other deliverables submitted OPM conform the contract requirements and, where applicable, national investigative and adjudicative standards.  The contractor shall not submit for payment any report that does not meet the requirements this contract. 
20. 
Section C.9.4.1 the contract further stated:  The Contractor shall conduct quality review all investigative reports ensure that the investigations are conducted accordance with the guidance this SOW and outlined the OPM Investigators Draft Handbook Version 5-Dated March 2005 and Handbook Revisions Notices. 

21. 
USIS understood that was required conduct full quality review each background investigation prior submitting the completed investigation OPM for processing and payment. the Technical Proposal that USIS submitted for the contract, USIS stated:  Field Operations Support staffs conduct quality review all investigative reports prior delivery. USIS further stated its Technical Proposal:  USIS Quality Control Program provides least one level quality Inspection for every ROI submitted. 

22. 
After the fieldwork was completed and the background investigation was supposedly reviewed USIS Reviewer, the completed background investigation was sent OPM for processing. that point, OPM would pay USIS the vast majority the payment due under the contract for the completed background investigation.  The remainder the payment would made after the case was processed and closed OPM.  The amount OPM paid USIS for completed background investigations ranged from $95 $2,500, depending upon the type background investigation issue. 

ii. The 2011 Fieldwork Contract 

23. 2011, USIS and OPM entered into follow-on contract the 2006 fieldwork contract with effective date December 2011.  Like the 2006 contract, USIS was responsible under the 2011 contract for conducting the fieldwork any background investigations assigned OPM. 

24. The 2011 fieldwork contract similarly required USIS conduct pre-submission 
quality review each and every ROI comprising case.  Specifically, Section the 
contract, titled Contractor Quality Control  Compliance with Quality Standards, states:   
The Contractor shall conduct pre-submission quality review qualified reviewer all OPM-FIS products and shall maintain inspection and evaluation system ensure that all investigative work products and other deliverables submitted OPM conform contract requirements, national investigative and adjudicative standards. The Contractor shall not submit for payment any case that does not meet the requirements this contract. 
25. Section F.8 the contract further provides:  The Contractor shall deliver completed, reviewed investigative items electronically OPM . 
26. The 2011 fieldwork contract remains effect. 
iii. The Support Contract 
27. addition the Fieldwork Contracts, USIS was also awarded the Support Contract, under which was responsible for assisting OPM with various administrative tasks related the background investigations program. 

28. 
Pursuant that contract, USIS was responsible for, among other things:  scheduling background investigations for OPM; various case/file management functions, including finger print processing, generic record searches, and case control file processing; and imaging files completed investigations for retention.   

29. 
Under the Support Contract, USIS was also responsible for conducting final review of, and closing, background investigations conducted all OPM contractors, which included background investigations that USIS itself had completed under the Fieldwork Contracts. Once contractor completed background investigation, was sent OPM for processing. that point, final review the entire background investigation would conducted before the investigation was closed and sent the agency that requested the 

investigation. OPM itself would review certain types background investigations.  The rest would sent USIS under the Support Contract and USIS would conduct the final review and closing the case for OPM. 

30. 
USIS has designated team called the Closing Authorization and Support Team (CAST) that was responsible for conducting review the completed background investigations and then closing those investigations that they could sent the agency that had requested the investigation. FIS determined the investigations closed FIS federal staff and those sent CAST for review and closing. The Work Flow Process 

31. 
During the relevant time period, the assignment and management the background investigations process between OPM and its contractors was handled electronically.  Specifically, when FIS received request from agency complete background investigation, the relevant information was entered into OPMs electronic Personnel Information Processing System (PIPs).  PIPs recorded who would conducting the investigation (FIS versus contractor) and the schedule for completion the fieldwork the investigation. 

32. investigation was assigned USIS, PIPs electronically forwarded the information related the investigation USIS.  Included the information forwarded USIS was the due date which the completed file had returned OPM.  Typically, FIS gave USIS and other contractors sixty ninety days complete background investigation. 

33. 
After was assigned background investigation, USIS employee referred Workload Leader reviewed the information the case, and then assigned the case particular USIS region (or multiple regions the applicant lived more than one geographic area during the relevant time period).  The case was reviewed second Workload Leader within the designated region(s) and then assigned particular background investigator(s). 

34. 
The Fieldwork Contracts required that all background investigators perform full and complete investigations each applicant.  Background investigators were responsible for preparing ROIs documenting the results their investigatory fieldwork. applicant lived multiple geographic areas during the time period the investigation, multiple field investigators would assigned, and each would prepare its own ROI.  Thus, each applicants background investigation file could have been comprised multiple ROIs. 

35. 
After ROIs were completed, they were transmitted OPMs mainframe the District Columbia.  They were then accessed remotely Workload Leader USISs facility Western Pennsylvania, who then assigned the ROIs USIS Reviewers.  The Fieldwork Contracts required USIS conduct quality review each and every ROI ensure that conformed OPM standards.  USIS understood that the Fieldwork Contracts required that quality review USIS Reviewer conducted each ROI before submission OPM for payment. 

36. 
The USIS Reviewer reviewed the ROI and, the Reviewer determined that additional fieldwork needed conducted that the ROI otherwise did not conform OPM standards, the Reviewer sent the ROI back the field investigator for additional work. the Reviewer determined that additional fieldwork was needed and that the ROI conformed OPM standards, then the Reviewer made electronic Review Complete notation OPMs PIPs system. 

37. 
After the last ROI case had been submitted PIPs and identified USIS with Review Complete notation, the completed background investigation was automatically identified PIPs Field Finished, which triggered the automatic release the case OPM for processing. 

38. 
Once case was transferred through PIPs OPM field finished, triggered OPMs obligation pay USIS the initial payment for that case.  OPM then forwarded USIS the initial payment amount for that case type.  The remainder the payment amount was sent OPM USIS after the case was closed. Payments under the Fieldwork Contracts were made electronic transfer through the Treasury Financial Communications System.    

39. addition the payments USIS received for each completed background investigation, under the Fieldworks Contracts, USIS was also eligible for and received annual bonus payments for meeting certain OPM goals.  Specifically, each year, OPM evaluated USISs performance three areas:  timeliness completed background investigations, quality work, and program management.  Depending upon its performance each these areas, USIS would eligible receive annual bonus payment.  The decision award bonus, and the amount that bonus, was entirely within the discretion OPM.   

40. 
USIS was awarded and received bonus payments for fiscal years 2008 ($2,418,109), 2009 ($3,504,636), and 2010 ($5,826,853), which totaled $11,749,598. Had OPM been aware USISs actions, detailed below, would not have awarded USIS the bonuses above because would not have deemed USISs performance acceptable the timeliness and/or program management areas. 

41. 
After background investigation was closed OPM, the completed file was forwarded the agency that requested the investigation.  The agency was then responsible for reviewing the file and making any necessary determinations regarding the applicants eligibility for new continued employment and/or possession security clearance. 

IV. The Fraudulent Scheme USISs Dumping Practices 

42. 
Beginning least March 2008 and continuing through least September 2012, USIS management devised and executed scheme deliberately circumvent contractually required quality reviews completed background investigations order increase the companys revenues and profits.  Specifically, USIS devised practice referred internally dumping flushing, which involved releasing cases OPM and representing them complete when, fact, not all ROIs comprising those cases had received quality review required the Fieldwork Contracts. 

43. 
USIS engaged the practice dumping order meet budgeted goals and, therefore, increase its revenues and profits.  Given that USIS was paid OPM for each completed case, the more cases USIS completed each month the more money received from OPM. USISs dumping practices also enabled the company receive annual performance incentive payments that would not otherwise have been entitled receive absent the dumping.   

44. 
Initially, USIS would dump cases manually.  Soon after the dumping started, however, USIS began using software program called Blue Zone assist the dumping practices. Through Blue Zone, USIS was able identify large number background investigations, quickly make electronic Review Complete notation indicating that the ROIs issue had gone through the review process even they had not, and then automatically release all those ROIs OPM with the Review Complete notation attached. using Blue Zone, USIS was able substantially increase the number background investigations that could dumped short time period. 

45. 
The dumping occurred USISs Western Pennsylvania facility.  The dumping was effectuated primarily, but not exclusively, specific employee that facility, USIS 

Workload Leader. Each morning, the Workload Leader and others would identify all the ROIs that needed reviewed that day order meet USISs internal goals.  The Workload Leader would then assign the ROIs the various USIS Reviewers the Western Pennsylvania facility. USIS Reviewers were instructed review many ROIs possible during the work day. 

46. the end the day, the Workload Leader and/or other designated staff would determine how many assigned ROIs had not been reviewed that day.  Using Blue Zone, the Workload Leader and/or other designated staff would then dump some all the ROIs that the review team had been unable review.   ROIs ready for review but which had not been assigned Reviewer that day might also dumped.  The Workload Leader and the other individuals who carried out the dumping actions were instructed engage dumping their supervisors and other members USIS management, described below.   

47. first, dumping occurred only the end the day. Eventually, however, the dumping became more frequent.  USISs internal budgeted number cases reviewed each day increased over time and, result, more cases needed dumped meet monthly goals set USIS management. result, the Workload Leader and the other individuals involved the dumping began dumping cases various times throughout the day, and the number cases that were dumped increased.  

48. 
The Workload Leader, coordination with his supervisor, USISs Quality Control Manager the Western Pennsylvania facility, would assign priority system the various ROIs attempt mitigate the negative effects the dumping.  These employees would assign priority codes the various ROIs ranging from 1-6 depending upon the risk level associated with the ROI. For example, more complicated ROI involving extensive 

fieldwork might assigned priority code whereas less complicated ROI involving only one interview simply record check might assigned priority code  When came time determine which cases dump, the Workload Leader other designated individual(s) would first dump the ROIs with priority code more cases needed dumped, they would then move priority cases and on. 

49. 
While dumping occurred daily basis, the number cases dumped tended increase significantly the end the month, quarter, and year. those times, USIS management, including, but not limited to, USISs Production Support Manager and USISs Director National Quality Assurance, would often direct the Workload Leader and his supervisor, the Quality Control Manager, clear out the shelves, which they understood mean that they should release all cases the queue waiting reviewed.  This practice was followed order meet USISs internal goals for completed cases and, therefore, increase the companys revenues and profits.   

50. addition the Workload Leader, other USIS employees who times performed dumping included, but were not limited to, USISs Director National Quality Assurance and Quality Control Manager, both whom both worked USISs Western Pennsylvania facility. USIS Management Was Aware and Directed the Dumping 

51. 
USIS Senior Management was fully aware and, fact, directed the dumping practices. Beginning least March 2008, USISs President/CEO established the internal revenue goals for USIS. USISs Chief Financial Officer determined how many cases needed reviewed dumped meet those goals.    

52. 
The number cases needed reviewed dumped meet revenue goals was conveyed USISs Vice President Field Operations and USISs President Investigative 

Service Division, who turn communicated this information other members USIS management, including USISs Production Support Senior Manager. The Production Support Senior Manager and others, turn, would convey those goals other USIS employees, namely USISs Director National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager Western Pennsylvania, and would provide instructions those employees when and how many cases needed reviewed dumped meet USISs goals.  These employees would then instruct the Workload Leader dump the number cases necessary meet USISs goals.  The instructions from the Director National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager dump cases were made verbally via telephone, some face-to-face meetings, and occasionally over email. 

53. 
Internal USIS documents confirm that USIS Senior Management was aware and directed the dumping practices.  For example, one undated internal document, USIS employee discussing the dumping practices stated: They will dump cases when word comes from above, such from [the President Investigative Service Division] and [the President/CEO]. the past, [the President Investigative Service Division] and [the President/CEO] have told clear out our shelves order hit revenue.  When this done they will dump all [priority code] [the President Investigative Service Division] and [the President/CEO] tell them they need clear out more then they will dump [priority code] 5s.  Last July through September were dumping all [priority code] and 6s per [the President Investigative Service Division] and [the President/CEO]. 

54. 
Another email chain dated September and 17, 2010 involving USISs Vice President Field Operations and its President Investigative Service Division, among others, discussed the need dump cases meet revenue goals.  The Vice President Field 

Operations referenced USISs revenue situation [w]e all own this baby, and right now are holding one ugly baby. The USIS Workload Leader Western Pennsylvania forwarded that email the Director National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager Western Pennsylvania and responded: The only two things can review get them out faster (a) hire (b) dump. dont know theres any other levers left flip other than dumping everything know bad. Just side note, the more MSPC [Master Scheduling Production Control] rams through, the more the field will transmit sub-standards, and the more [the number cases needing secondary review] will up.  Come EOM [End Month], theyre going tell just dump all those cases anyways without proper review, which [sic] will only make that ugly baby even uglier 

55. 
Internal USIS emails confirm that USIS management was acutely aware the dumping cases.  Every day, the Workload Leader Western Pennsylvania would send email his supervisors with the subject line EOD [End Day] Numbers.  The email would detail the number ROIs released USIS during that day, and often the emails would contain comments about the number cases dumped.  For example, email dated April 30, 2010 from the Workload Leader the Director National Quality Assurance and Quality Control Manager states:  Shelves are clean they could get.  Flushed everything like dead goldfish. Another email dated May 25, 2010 involving the same group people reads:  We dumped all could try and hit the 1100 mark but fell shorteven dumped the new flagged/flushed [cases pulled from the field] and got ahead secondary, but just didnt have what need [to meet USISs internal goals]. 

56. 
Other internal emails show that dumping was frequent and accepted occurrence USIS. email dated October 29, 2010, the Workload Leader Western Pennsylvania 

sent message the Director National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager, among others, stating, tis Flushy McFlushershon his merry hijinks again!!  **leprechaun dance**Im not tired another example, December 27, 2010, the Workload Leader also wrote the Director National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager: Scalping tickets for Dick Clarks Dumpin New Years Eve! Who needs Have bit backlog building, but fortunately, most people are off this week one will notice! Examples Dumped Background Investigations 
57. 
During the time period March 2008 through September 2012, USIS released least 665,000 background investigations OPM and represented them complete when, fact, one more the ROIs comprising those background investigations had not received quality review required the Fieldwork Contracts.  This represented approximately forty percent the total background investigations conducted USIS during that time frame. 

58. 
The background investigations that were dumped spanned most government agencies, including the Department Justice, Department Homeland Security, Department Health and Human Services, Department Transportation, Department Treasury, and Department Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, and included most types background investigations. 

59. 
The background investigations that were dumped included the less complicated investigations such National Agency Checks with Law Checks (NACLC), which involve check the applicants credit history, legal record and check government agency files (e.g., Federal Bureau Investigation files and fingerprint records).  The dumped investigations also included more complicated investigations such Single Scope Background Investigations (SSBI), which involve, among other things, the law, credit and agency checks noted above 

well interviews past and present employers, coworkers, and other individuals associated 
with the subject the investigation. 
60. USIS would dump ROIs knowing that there could potentially quality issues 
associated with those dumped ROIs.  For example, email dated October 2010 from USIS 
employee to, among others, the Director National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control 
Manager regarding meeting USISs Case Deficient Rate, states:  We can not get clear 
quality rating when dump half our cases.  Quality rating refers the rate which cases 
are kicked back USIS for further rework after the second level review conducted FIS 
staff.  
61. Examples cases improperly dumped USIS include:  
 around January 07, 2009, USIS received request from OPM conduct background investigation AA, employee the Department the Interior. around March 2009, USIS released that background investigation OPM and, doing so, represented that the background investigation had received the contractually required quality review USIS. fact, least one the ROIs comprising that background investigation did not receive the quality review required the contract.  Following receipt the background investigation from USIS, the background investigation received federally controlled quality review OPM and was closed.  Believing that the background investigation had been conducted USIS accordance with the requirements the contract, OPM paid USIS $999.21 for that background investigation around March 2009. 

 around January 2010, USIS received request from OPM conduct background investigation BB, employee the Department Defense. around February 17, 2010, USIS released that background investigation OPM and, doing so, represented that the background investigation had received the contractually required quality review USIS. fact, least one the ROIs comprising that background investigation did not receive the quality review required the contract.  Following receipt the background investigation from USIS, the background investigation received federally controlled quality review OPM and was closed.  Believing that the background investigation had been conducted accordance 

with the requirements the contract, OPM paid USIS $497.88 for that background investigation around February 17, 2010. 

 around February 22, 2010, USIS received request from OPM conduct background investigation CC, contractor for the Department Defense. around March 17, 2010, USIS released that background investigation OPM and, doing so, represented that the background investigation had received the contractually required quality review USIS. fact, least one the ROIs comprising that background investigation did not receive the quality review required the contract.  Following receipt the background investigation from USIS, the background investigation received federally controlled quality review OPM and was closed.  Believing that the background investigation had been conducted accordance with the requirements the contract, OPM paid USIS $2,028.02 for that background investigation around March 17, 2010. 

 around August 01, 2010, USIS received request from OPM conduct background investigation DD, employee the Department Homeland Security. around August 26, 2010, USIS released that background investigation OPM and, doing so, represented that the background investigation had received the contractually required quality review USIS. fact, least one the ROIs comprising that background investigation did not receive the quality review required the contract.  Following receipt the background investigation from USIS, the background investigation received federally controlled quality review OPM and was closed. Believing that the background investigation had been conducted accordance with the requirements the contract, OPM paid USIS $470.72 for that background investigation around August 26, 2010. 

 around December 21, 2010, USIS received request from OPM conduct background investigation EE, contractor for the Department Homeland Security. around January 11, 2011, USIS released that background investigation OPM and, doing so, represented that the background investigation had received the contractually required quality review USIS. fact, least one the ROIs comprising that background investigation did not receive the quality review required the contract.  Following receipt the background investigation from USIS, the background investigation received federally controlled quality review OPM and was closed. Believing that the background investigation had been conducted 

accordance with the requirements the contract, OPM paid USIS $1,067.75 for that background investigation around January 11, 2011. 

 around June 22, 2011 USIS received request from OPM conduct background investigation FF, employee the Department Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency. around August 16, 2011, USIS released that background investigation OPM and, doing so, represented that the background investigation had received the contractually required quality review USIS. fact, least one the ROIs comprising that background investigation did not receive the quality review required the contract.  Following receipt the background investigation from USIS, the background investigation received federally controlled quality review OPM and was closed. Believing that the background investigation had been conducted accordance with the requirements the contract, OPM paid USIS $1,754.37 for that background investigation around September 12, 2011.   

62. Had OPM been aware that USIS had not conducted quality review the 
background investigations listed above, would not have accepted those investigations 
complete and would not have paid USIS for the investigations.    
63. The examples listed above are just some the thousands background 
investigations improperly dumped USIS.   Due its fraudulent conduct, USIS received 
millions dollars that otherwise would not have received had OPM been aware that the 
background investigations had not gone through the quality review process required the 
Fieldwork Contracts. addition, had OPM been aware USISs fraudulent conduct, would 
not have awarded USIS performance awards for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, which totaled      
$11,749,598. USIS Concealed its Dumping Practices from OPM 
64. order ensure that its dumping practices would continue undetected, USIS 
took variety actions conceal the dumping from OPM.   
65. April 2011, OPM conducted data analysis information submitted USIS PIPs for one week period from February 21, 2011 through February 28, 2011.  OPMs analysis showed that small group USIS employees were identified having released substantial number cases when compared with the workload other Reviewers.  OPMs analysis also showed that large number ROIs were identified Review Complete when the metadata revealed that the ROI had never been opened USIS Reviewer.  OPM raised these concerns letter USIS dated April 2011.   

66. 
USISs response the April 2011 letter never disclosed that the true reason those employees released large numbers ROIs was because they were not actually reviewing the ROIs, but instead were dumping them.  Nor did USIS reveal that the true reason the metadata showed the ROIs never having been opened USIS was because Blue Zone was automatically identifying them Review Complete and then USIS was releasing them OPM complete. Instead, USIS falsely responded that conducts quality reviews all ROIs submitted OPM and falsely attributed the issues noted OPM variety software problems and glitches.  This response letter, dated April 19, 2011, was signed USISs Vice President Field Operations, who, detailed above, was aware and directed the dumping practices. 

67. 
USIS also ensured that all dumping practices stopped when OPM was site conducting audits. For example, USIS delayed dumping cases September 2011 because FIS personnel were site USISs facility Western Pennsylvania conducting audit/inspection. shown internal email dated October 2011 from the President the USIS Investigative Services Division USISs President/CEO and Chief Financial Officer, 

USIS was concerned about dumping cases while OPM was site conducting the September 2011 audit: Looks like are going have quite bit more push into FY12 than anticipated. currently have the highest dollar amount ever WPA [Western Pennsylvania facility] pending review and release the customer.almost $8M. This driven few things. 	
The behavior not pushing too close the utilizing [overtime] 	
The detailing support services 	
High level scrutiny with mass case releases.  (OPM actually auditing the review team today and tomorrow) 

68. October 2011 email from USISs Chief Financial Officer response the email above from the Vice President the Investigative Service Division confirms that USIS waited dump/flush the September cases until October, after the audit was concluded:  At the risk sounding obvious, need robust review recovery plan for October.  Most the September miss should flush October, top the October number have included our budget. 

69. 
USIS took other actions conceal its dumping practices from OPM.  For example, discussed above, FIS would conduct review certain the background investigations conducted USIS and other contractors.  If, during that review, OPM determined that case was deficient and failed meet OPM standards, was kicked back the contractor for further work.  USIS was required keep logs the number such cases.  The logs identified the USIS Reviewer who purportedly reviewed and then released the deficient case OPM for processing. OPM had the ability audit USISs logs. 

70. 
Because USISs dumping practices, the Workload Leader Western Pennsylvania who primarily performed the dumping had inordinate number cases released under his identification number kicked back him OPM. order avoid any suspicions OPM about the work being conducted that Workload Leader the event OPM chose audit USISs logs, USIS management instructed employees the Western Pennsylvania facility not log any deficient cases kicked back from OPM that had been released that person.  This practice was summed email dated April 2010 from USIS employee the USIS Quality Control Manager Western Pennsylvania, among others: 
Just reminder that, any roiff [Report Investigation, Field Finished] logged for [the Workload Leader] should not marked deficient.  Also, please not indicate auto released. Instead, include brief summary what was deficient. not want the customer see this should audited again.  Sorry did not relay this previously. have gone and changed any that were marked deficient since last August. 
71. USIS personnel working the Fieldwork Contracts also improperly used information received USIS pursuant its responsibilities under the Support Contract order prevent OPM from discovering its dumping scheme.  USIS employees responsible for the review background investigations under the Fieldwork Contracts would determine which categories types cases FIS was likely targeting for review the federal staff, opposed those cases more likely directed CAST for review and closing.  The Workload Leader Pennsylvania who primarily performed the dumping and other designated personnel would then avoid dumping those types cases.  This was done minimize the risk that cases would kicked back USIS FIS for further rework, and raise concerns OPM about the quality the review process. For example, email dated June 2010, the Workload Leader wrote the Quality Control Manager: We autod what could yesterday, but didnt flush PPRs because the CAST changes. CAUSES ACTION 
Count False Fraudulent Claims 

(31 U.S.C.  3729(a)(1)(A) (2009), formerly U.S.C.  3729(a)(1)(2006)) 
72. Paragraphs through are re-alleged though fully set forth herein. 
73. 
USIS knowingly presented, caused presented, false fraudulent claim for payment approval. U.S.C.  3729(a)(1) (2009). 

74. 
USIS knowingly presented, caused presented, officer employee the United States government, false fraudulent claims for payment approval. U.S.C.  3729(a)(1)(2006). 

75. 
Because the Defendants acts, the United States sustained damages amount determined trial and, therefore, entitled treble damages under the False Claims Act, plus penalties not less than $5,500 and $11,000 for each violation. 

Count II: False Statements 
(31 U.S.C.  3729(a)(1)(B) (2009), formerly U.S.C.  3729(a)(2)(2006)) 
76. Paragraphs through are re-alleged though fully set forth herein. 
77. 
USIS knowingly made, used, caused made used, false record statement material false fraudulent claim. U.S.C.  3729(a)(1)(B) (2009). 

78. 
USIS knowingly made, used, caused made used, false record statement get false fraudulent claim paid approved the Government. U.S.C.  3729(a)(2) (2006). 

79. 
Because the Defendants acts, the United States sustained damages amount determined trial and, therefore, entitled treble damages under the False Claims Act, plus penalties not less than $5,500 and $11,000 for each violation. 

Count III: Breach Contract 
80. Paragraphs through are re-alleged though fully stated herein. 
81. 
OPM entered into contract with USIS July 2006 for the performance background investigation services prospective current federal employees contractors. OPM entered into follow-on contract with USIS December 2011. 

82. 
USIS materially breached its contracts with OPM failing perform quality reviews all ROIs released OPM for processing required under the terms the contracts. 

83. result USISs breach contract, the United States has sustained damages amount determined trial. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
Wherefore, Plaintiff, the United States, demands judgment against Defendant follows: 
Under Counts and (False Claims Act), for amount the United States damages, trebled required law, plus such civil penalties are required law, together with all such further relief may just and proper; 
Under Count III (Breach Contract), for the damages sustained the United States, plus interest and costs, and all such further relief may just and proper; Such other relief this Court may deem just and proper, together with interest and costs this action. 
THE UNITED STATES DEMANDS JURY TRIAL ALL ISSUES TRIABLE. 
Respectfully submitted, 
      STUART DELERY       Assistant Attorney General      Civil Division 
GEORGE BECK, JR. United States Attorney Middle District Alabama 
 /s/ James Dubois 
      JAMES DUBOIS
      Assistant United States Attorney Bar Number: 231445 

P.O. Box 197 
      Montgomery, 36101-0197 
      Telephone No.: (334) 223-7280 
      Facsimile No.: (334) 223-7418 
      E-mail: James.DuBois2@usdoj.gov 
/s/ Melissa Handrigan
      MICHAEL GRANSTON 
      TRACY HILMER 
      MELISSA HANDRIGAN 
      Attorneys, Civil Division
      Commercial Litigation Branch
      Post Office Box 261 

      Ben Franklin Station
      Washington, D.C. 20044 

      Telephone: (202) 305-3083 

      Email: Melissa.R.Handrigan@usdoj.gov Dated: January 22, 2014