Federal contractor scrutiny on the rise

Friday - 7/30/2010, 8:53pm EDT

WFED's Jason Miller

Click below to hear the report

Download mp3

By Jason Miller
Executive Editor
Federal News Radio

The Justice Department's decision to join a false claims act lawsuit against one of the largest federal contractors is yet another sign of the increased scrutiny vendors are coming under.

"This is a time in our contracting lives where the Department of Justice is anxious to attach its name to any case that it feels has merit or likelihood of a cash return to government, whether or not there's actually a basis for the case is another matter," says Larry Allen, President of the Coalition for Government Procurement, an industry association.

"There are misunderstandings or a general lack of knowledge about commercial business practices particularly as they pertain to software. What this really is about is trying to have some people seeing if they can hold contractors feet to fire. This is kind of a season in which it is open season on contractors."

Justice announced Thursday that it believes the Oracle Corporation defrauded the government by charging agencies more for products and services on their General Services Administration's schedule than what it charged its commercial customers from 1998 to 2006.

DoJ joins a Qui Tam, or whistleblower suit, filed by a former Oracle director of contract services, Paul Frascella. He contends that the software giant knowingly "misrepresented its true commercial sales practices, ultimately leading the government customers receiving deals far inferior to those Oracle gave commercial customers," Justice says in a release.

Several e-mails requesting a comment from Oracle were not returned.

Oracle received about $3.6 billion in contracts from the government, according to USASpending.gov. Most of the company's sales are direct to the government, but more than $600 million come through resellers. The Navy, the Army and GSA's Federal Technology Service are Oracle's largest customers, accounting for almost $2 billion.

Bill Shook, a partner with Shook Doran Koehl, LLP, which represents companies in contracting matters against the government, says that cases like Oracle's are becoming more common.

"We are seeing an increase in pre-award audits for renewals of GSA schedule contracts, which come up every five years," he says. "The GSA inspector general has increased the number of pre-award audits, and that entails looking at past performance of the last five years and using that evidence to suggest that perhaps there were violations of the price reduction clause and the price and disclosure clause."

These clauses basically require vendors to ensure the government is receiving the lowest cost possible. GSA is considering a recommendation to do away with the price reduction clause made by the Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel in June 2009.

Shook says many companies find the price reduction clause confusing and difficult to determine exactly when it applies.

"If you take a very narrow view of when it's applicable based on disclosures made to GSA, then it doesn't present a problem," Shook says. "If you take a very broad view, which DoJ and the IG have in the past done, then you can find possible violations of it fairly easily."

Justice has gone after several companies over the past few years. EMC Corporation settled a False Claims Act suit by paying the government $87.5 million in May. Network Appliance paid DoJ under a similar settlement of $128 million in March 2009.

Oracle also settled a false claims complaint in 2006 for almost $99 million.

One source, who requested anonymity in order to speak more freely about this topic, says a lot of scrutiny is in response to the Bush administration's lack of oversight. The source says there are problems, but the aggressiveness by which Justice and the IG are going after companies seems out of whack.

Allen says these cases and other aggressive actions by the IGs and Justice are causing a lot of concern among vendors.

"It may not take specific adverse findings before some companies will just decide to get out ahead of the punitive curve and decide maybe best way to sell into the government marketplace is indirectly through system integrators or other resellers," he says. "There are some significant costs here. They will have to do a cost benefit analysis to see whether or not continuing to do business as prime contractor in this market makes good business sense."

Shook and Allen offer some advice for companies to stay out of trouble.

Allen says vendors should spend as much on compliance as they do on business development.

"Companies should be sure they understand and acknowledge what the requirements are and have good compliance programs in place," he says. "They also should provide regular training to their employees on these issues."