Stantec and Cardno: Writing the Specifications, Then Winning the Work

Stantec and Cardno agreed to pay $4 million to resolve allegations of writing EPA grant procurement specifications before bidding for and winning the resulting assessment work. The government alleged that the companies falsely certified compliance with a restriction meant to keep specification writers out of the competition, or caused communities applying for grants to make that certification. If you worked on the application, the scope of work or the bid, you may recognize the gap between who shaped the job and who later competed for it.

The Justice Department announced the settlement on July 7, 2025. Stantec Inc. provides environmental development and engineering services and has its primary headquarters in Alberta, Canada.

EPA Assessment Grants and the Local Contract

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Grant Program funds work that helps cities, towns and other municipalities assess, safely clean up and reuse contaminated properties. This settlement concerned Brownfields Assessment Grants. The procurement question was who could compete for the assessment work financed through those grants.

There are different transactions here: the federal grant to the community, and the community’s purchase of services. For this form of federal grant fraud, the connection runs through the application and the procurement commitments it carries. Someone who sees only the local contract may miss what the community told the federal agency funding it.

That distinction matters to an environmental consultant. Helping a community describe a project and competing to perform the resulting work place the firm on different sides of the purchasing decision. The government’s allegation joined those roles together: the companies allegedly helped prepare the request for proposals or statement of work, then won the work described there.

What Is a False Certification?

A false certification in this case was the alleged assurance that the grant applicant had complied with the restriction on specification writers competing for the resulting work. The Justice Department said applicants had to certify that contractors developing or drafting specifications, requirements, statements of work or invitations for bids were excluded from competing on those procurements.

The alleged false statement could reach the Environmental Protection Agency through the community’s application. According to the government, Stantec and Cardno either falsely certified compliance themselves or caused communities applying for the grants to certify it.

We see the absurdity in that alleged arrangement: a consultant helps write the job it wants to win, while the application promises that specification writers stayed out of the competition. A head start with a sign-off.

Does Helping Draft the Specifications Count?

Yes. The United States alleged that Stantec and Cardno drafted or assisted in drafting requests for proposals and statements of work, then competed for and won the assessment work described there. Helping draft was part of the allegation, not just writing the documents from scratch.

For someone inside the project team, the work before the final solicitation matters: who contributed the scope, what they contributed and how that work connected to the later bid. The community’s role in submitting the application did not keep the consultant’s contribution out of the government’s allegations.

The 2024 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Helpdesk paper Transparency, Accountability, and Integrity of Public Procurement Systems identifies inadequate rules for technical specifications among recurring weaknesses in procurement systems. It also treats clear responsibilities and measures addressing conflicts of interest as parts of procurement integrity.

The paper reports evidence that transparency can broaden the pool of potential suppliers where other competitive suppliers are available to enter. It emphasizes access to opportunities, requirements and evaluation criteria. Our point is that access to a finished solicitation and a role in writing it are different advantages. The Environmental Protection Agency restriction described in this case addressed who helped create the requirements before anyone submitted a competing offer.

An honest consultant has to price and compete for a job that, under the alleged arrangement, another bidder helped define. Taxpayers fund the work, and the community depends on that money to address contaminated property. The competition matters to all of them.

The broader conflict pattern also appeared in SAIC’s work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where the government alleged that the company certified an absence of conflicts while advising the agency about low-radioactivity material. The government alleged that SAIC had business ties to companies that stood to profit from its advice. Here, the independence question concerns the consultant’s role in writing a procurement and then competing for it.

Why the Cardno Acquisition Date Matters

Stantec acquired Cardno in 2021. The settlement concerned Assessment Grants awarded from 2014 through 2022, and the government alleged drafting-and-bidding conduct over that same period.

The government described Stantec’s participation through Stantec Consulting Services Inc. For an insider, the acquisition date helps distinguish Cardno’s earlier projects from work after it came under Stantec’s ownership.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Fraud?

For this alleged scheme, the useful evidence connects the grant application’s certification, the authorship of the procurement documents and the later bid and award. Our review of procurement and payment records follows those connections through the particular transaction. We work with the insider to understand how the documents fit the work they saw.

A scope draft and the final request for proposals can show how a consultant’s contribution reached the competition. The bid and award connect that contribution to the business that sought and obtained the work. We examine those documents against the promise in the grant application, with the insider who knows how the project actually developed.

This is where an insider’s account can carry real weight. If you worked on the grant application or helped prepare the scope, you may be able to explain how the consultant’s contribution reached the final documents. If you worked on the bid or billing, you may know how the resulting work moved through the business. We build the case around those connections with you.

A False Claims Act Case About Grant Procurement

The Stantec and Cardno settlement resolved False Claims Act allegations about applications submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. A trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, and a special agent in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General investigated.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. The whistleblower reward starts with a case built around what the person knows. For someone inside grant-funded environmental work, that knowledge may concern decisions made before the competition was announced: who helped write the scope, who later bid and what the application represented about that combination.

You Saw How the Scope Was Written

If you know how a consultant helped shape an EPA-funded procurement and then bid for it, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about how that scope was written. We bring in government procurement whistleblower lawyers who understand grant-funded contracting and stay beside you through the case. Together, we build your strongest grant fraud whistleblower case.