Global Computer Enterprises: Concealed Staffing on Civilian Software Contracts

Global Computer Enterprises and its president and sole owner agreed to pay $9 million to settle allegations that the company concealed staffing that violated restrictions on civilian software contracts. The government alleged that engineers and other employees worked on contracts that expressly barred them because of their citizenship or immigration status, security clearance, qualifications or overseas location. For someone who knew the actual project team, the difference between the staffing promised and the people doing the work was the heart of the case.

The Reston, Virginia company provided cloud-based software as a service. Its customers included the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which bought financial-management software services through competitively awarded contracts. The Justice Department announced the settlement on May 7, 2015.

The Software Contracts and the People Allowed to Work on Them

On the Labor Department and EEOC contracts, the alleged concealment concerned citizenship or immigration status. On software-development contracts with the General Services Administration, the United States Secret Service and the United States Coast Guard, it concerned security-clearance status, labor qualifications or overseas locations.

For an insider, those categories point to different parts of the personnel file and project history: eligibility for the assignment, required skills, clearance and where the work happened. We compare each condition with the team actually assigned to that contract.

The Labor Department and EEOC allegations also covered more than the original sales pitch. According to the Justice Department, Global Computer Enterprises misrepresented or concealed its use of prohibited employees both during the competitions and after award. The government alleged repeated misrepresentation or concealment on the other software-development contracts as well.

That puts the people preparing the bid and the people managing the project in the same story. What the agency heard before choosing a contractor can be compared with what happened after the team began work. The alleged concealment crossed that divide.

We see a basic unfairness in that allegation. A bidder concealing prohibited staff asks the government to judge its offer against a promise it is allegedly failing to keep.

Why Staffing Can Change What the Government Pays For

Government contract labor category qualification fraud concerns the qualifications attached to the labor the government buys. The qualification can affect whether an hour is payable at all.

For example, the federal payment clause for time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts ties payment to actual timekeeping, qualifying labor categories and supporting records. Where a contract specifies labor qualifications, the clause withholds payment for work performed by employees who lack them unless the contracting officer specifically authorizes it.

That is a concrete reason to read the staffing requirement alongside the bill. An hour recorded under a qualifying labor category carries a claim about the person performing it. We look at the qualification the contract required, the employee’s actual qualifications and any authorization for the assignment. The comparison connects a personnel record to a payment decision.

In Global Computer Enterprises’ case, the government’s allegation was concealment of people expressly prohibited from the assignments. Its account makes the staffing condition central to the purchased service, from competition through performance. That is why an employee who knows the team can bring something essential to a government procurement case even without having prepared an invoice.

Other IT Cases Put the Labor Category Beside the Worker

SAP Public Services agreed to pay more than $2.2 million in a settlement that included alleged failures to meet educational or experiential staffing qualifications under GSA contracts. The Justice Department’s March 2021 announcement also covered contractual discounts and Industrial Funding Fees. The staffing allegations concerned whether the people supplied met the qualifications in the bargain.

In the Hill Associates case, the government alleged billing for unqualified labor on GSA IT services. The parallel is the gap between the qualifications the government bought and those of the people doing the work.

Global Computer Enterprises adds citizenship, immigration status, clearance and overseas-location restrictions to that picture. Its alleged staffing problem therefore reached beyond the education or experience attached to a billed labor category. The exact condition on the assignment is what gives the insider’s knowledge meaning.

The Settlement Came Through Bankruptcy

The company and its president and sole owner agreed to resolve the civil False Claims Act allegations and other civil claims through a payment from Global Computer Enterprises’ Chapter 11 proceeding.

Who Investigated the Staffing Allegations?

The GSA Office of Inspector General, the FBI’s Washington Field Office, the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General and the EEOC Office of Inspector General investigated the case. The Coast Guard Investigative Service and the Secret Service assisted them.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

For a software-contract staffing case, we examine evidence connecting the staffing requirement, the actual assignment and what the government was told or billed. We compare personnel and assignment records with the contractor’s proposal and payment records to connect the actual team to the promises made about it.

Timing gives those records meaning. Global Computer Enterprises allegedly concealed prohibited staffing during competition and after award. We would compare the representation with the assignment it described at that time, and look at who knew the staffing differed. A project manager’s account of the team and a contract administrator’s account of the promise can illuminate different parts of the same discrepancy.

Transparency International’s 2024 paper Transparency, Accountability, and Integrity of Public Procurement Systems cautions that publishing procurement data alone does not reduce corruption when people lack the resources to analyze and interpret it. The paper includes contract performance among the information needed for scrutiny. We see the relevance here: an award notice can tell the public who won, but an insider can explain who actually performed the work. Connecting those accounts is where we put that knowledge to work.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

You Know Who Actually Did the Work

If you know that a federal software project used staff the contract prohibited, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about the team behind the work. We build your strongest government procurement whistleblower case with you, connect the staffing decisions to the government’s contract and bring in government procurement fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand software-service requirements. We stay beside you through the case, with your knowledge of the project at its center.