The government’s complaint alleges that Triple Canopy knowingly billed the United States for hundreds of foreign nationals it hired as security guards who could not meet firearms proficiency tests established by the Army and required under the contract. The tests ensure that security guards hired to protect U.S. and allied personnel are capable of firing their AK-47 assault rifles and other weapons safely and accurately. The government also alleges that Triple Canopy’s managers in Iraq falsified test scorecards as a cover up to induce the government to pay for the unqualified guards, and that Triple Canopy continued to bill the government even after high-level officials at the company’s headquarters had been alerted to the misconduct. The complaint further alleges that Triple Canopy used the false qualification records in an attempt to persuade the JCC-I/A to award the company a second year of security work at the Al Asad Airbase.

“For a government contractor to knowingly provide deficient security services, as is alleged in this case, is unthinkable, especially in war time,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. “The department will do everything it can to ensure that contractors comply with critical contract requirements and that contractors who don’t comply aren’t permitted to profit at the expense of our men and women in uniform and the taxpayers at home who support them.”

“We will not tolerate government contractors anywhere in the world who seek to defraud the United States through deliberate or reckless conduct that violates contractual requirements and risks the security of government personnel,” said Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The government’s claims are based on a whistleblower suit initially filed by a former employee of Triple Canopy in 2011. The suit was filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provision of the False Claims Act, which allows private persons to file suit on behalf of the United States. Under the act, the government has a period of time to investigate the allegations and decide whether to intervene in the action or to decline intervention and allow the whistleblower to go forward alone.

This matter was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia; the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division; and the Army Criminal Investigative Command (CID) and Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) of the Department of Defense.

The claims asserted against Triple Canopy are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability. The government is not aware of any injuries that occurred as a result of the alleged misconduct.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, and is captioned United States ex rel. Badr v. Triple Canopy, Inc.

DynCorp, which is owned by affiliates of New York-based Cerberus Capital Management LP, oversaw the construction at Camp Pamir in Afghanistan’s Kunduz province. The DynCorp project was part of a U.S. effort to train and house the Afghan Army, which is growing this year to 195,000 personnel.

 

“Despite the unsatisfactory performance of the contractor, DynCorp,” officials from the Army Corps’s District North region in Afghanistan “released DynCorp from further contractual liability,” John Sopko, the inspector general, wrote in today’s report. The company was paid $70.8 million on the contracts, “releasing it from any further liabilities and warranty obligations.” Download Report Here

DynCorp’s Comment

“We absolutely disagree with several of the report’s conclusions concerning the causes for the issues experienced at this site,” Ashley Burke, a DynCorp spokeswoman, said today in an e-mail. “Further, work was completed and this contract was closed out last year so we are unable to comment on 2012 site conditions that may or may not exist today.”

DynCorp turned over responsibility for the site in 2011, and the current occupants have been accountable for maintenance and care of the facilities since then, Burke said.

Other contractors were doing additional construction and grading work by the time inspectors returned, she said. The company was still reviewing the report, which it didn’t see in advance of its release, Burke said.

Delays at the Kunduz complex hampered training, the special inspector general found in the April 2010 audit. Afghan troops had to be housed in temporary facilities that exposed them to mud, freezing conditions, sewage and unsafe food storage, auditors told Bloomberg News in June 2010.

The contract release, in the form of a December 2011 settlement, “appears to be on unfavorable terms to the U.S. Government,” Sopko said.

‘Questionable’ Terms

Sopko called the settlement terms “questionable” with a “lack of adequate explanation,” in a cover letter dated today to U.S. Central Command Commander General James Mattis and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan commander General John Allen.

Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Division Deputy Commander Colonel John Hurley said in a written statement included in the inspector general’s report that the organization “has initiated an in-depth review of the rationale for the settlement.”

“Many of the key players involved with the settlement are no longer in country and arrangements are being made to obtain and evaluate their rationale,” Hurley wrote. The Corps wants to complete the review by November 9, he said.

Sopko wrote that the camp is “at risk of further structural failures, the construction contractor is not liable and further remediation to protect the initial investment” will require more funds that should be “justified and closely monitored.”

An example of the lingering deficiencies was found during a March 25 inspection at an electrical power transformer where inspectors found “a sinkhole developing and general structural settling,” according to Sopko’s report.

“Failure of the transformer would result in a loss of electrical power over a large portion of Camp Pamir, causing significant financial loss and increasing the risk of injury through fire and electrical shock,” he said. credit: businessweek.com