GE, Howmet and Precision Castparts: The Testing Behind the Military’s Engine Blades

In the GE, Howmet and Precision Castparts engine blade settlement, the companies paid the United States $11.5 million to resolve allegations that GE sold defective blades for military airplane and helicopter engines. Employees at GE’s Madisonville, Kentucky plant brought the case over alleged quality-control problems involving casting and nondestructive testing. Service members relied on those engines, and taxpayers paid for the blades.

The Justice Department announced the settlement on July 21, 2006. The lawsuit alleged problems over a period of years involving several types of blades manufactured at GE’s Aircraft Engines division facility. For someone working in inspection, manufacturing or quality assurance, the useful detail is where the work changed hands: suppliers made the unfinished castings, and GE finished them.

The Castings Reached GE Unfinished

Howmet and Precision Castparts manufactured the unfinished castings for the blades, which GE then finished at Madisonville. The announcement identified Howmet as an Alcoa subsidiary at the time and named both subcontractors as defendants alongside General Electric.

That handoff matters in cases involving both contractors and their suppliers. Purchase orders, component identities and inspection records connect work done at a supplier to the product delivered further along the chain. The company holding the original test result and the company presenting the government’s bill can occupy different places in that chain.

We look at what the supplier was required to deliver, what the finishing plant received, and what the inspection and release records said about the same parts. A casting specialist may know the supplier’s work, while someone at the finishing plant knows what GE received.

Casting Quality and Nondestructive Testing

The GE lawsuit alleged nonconformances in both casting and nondestructive testing. That combination puts the production work and the testing meant to evaluate it in the same case. The alleged failures put GE’s blades within the wider problem of nonconforming defense products and unreliable testing.

For GE’s blades, we would compare the specified requirement with the work actually performed and the result reported to the customer. The original test record, the sampling plan and the identity of the production lot give a reported result its meaning.

This is where technical knowledge has value beyond reading a certificate. Someone familiar with the test can explain what the original result means, which production it represents and whether the reported result matches it. Someone familiar with the purchase can explain what the customer required and what statement accompanied delivery. We bring those accounts together around the government money.

The Employees and the Government Investigation

Several employees of GE’s Madisonville facility filed the False Claims Act case. The settlement announcement identifies the investigating agencies: the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, the U.S. Navy Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigation and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General. The Defense Contract Audit Agency provided audit support.

The employees supplied the case’s starting point inside the plant, while investigators and auditors worked on the government’s response. Your knowledge of the manufacturing or testing can be the part of the story that an outside reader of the purchase paperwork would miss.

The Employees’ Share of the Recovery

The Justice Department said the employee whistleblowers would receive about $2.36 million collectively as their share of the companies’ payment. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

We work with people considering a defense contractor whistleblower claim to connect their knowledge of the work to the government’s payment and the company’s decisions. If you have questions about anonymity or your own role in the testing, bring those to us too.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Fraud?

For a military-parts testing case, the evidence connects the required specification, the original test result, the identified part or lot, and the representation used for acceptance or payment. We examine those connections with the whistleblower, including what the company knew when it supplied the parts or reported the result. Different records answer different parts of that inquiry:

• The required work. Contract specifications, purchase orders and sampling plans identify what the customer bought and which tests the production required.
• The work actually recorded. Original test cards, inspection results and lot identities connect the measurement to the parts. A later summary can be compared with the original entry for that same production.
• The statement that reached the buyer. Certificates, release or acceptance records and payment records show how the company represented the product when it entered the purchasing chain.

These comparisons give a manufacturing concern a specific object: the same casting, blade or production lot at each stage. We follow that identity across the supplier’s records and the customer’s records, so the account of a test stays connected to what was delivered and what the government paid for.

What Are the Red Flags in Procurement Fraud?

In military-parts testing, altered measurements, failures omitted from summaries and certificates reused for untested production are concrete warning signs. In the whistleblower’s complaint against Wellman, the employee alleged instructions to remove failed test results from the stored daily summary.

In a separate supplier case, Bradken admitted in its criminal deferred prosecution agreement that it caused shipbuilders to bill the Navy for steel that failed strength and toughness specifications. For an insider with a concern about military engine blades, we pursue the same concrete connection between the work, the assurance and the government purchase.

You Know the Work Behind the Test Record

If you know where the casting, the test result and the customer’s assurance stopped matching, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about where the testing broke down. We build the case with you and bring in defense contractor fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand military specifications, supplier records and government payments. We stay beside you as your knowledge of the work becomes your strongest defense contractor whistleblower case.