Accutest Environmental Testing False Claims Settlement: The Alleged Shortcuts Inside the Test

In the Accutest environmental testing false claims settlement, the laboratory agreed to pay $3 million to resolve allegations that it failed to follow EPA methods for soil and water samples. The Justice Department’s allegations reached inside the testing process: too few extraction shakes, shortened waiting times, improper quality-control spiking, changed instrument settings and disregarded calibration. If you performed or reviewed that work, you may recognize the difference between the method a customer bought and the steps the laboratory recorded.

Accutest Corp., also known as Accutest Laboratories, provided environmental analytical services to industrial, engineering, consulting and government clients. The company was headquartered in Dayton, New Jersey, when the Justice Department announced the federal settlement on December 3, 2015. This page follows the alleged laboratory shortcuts and the separate federal and New Jersey settlement terms. Our broader account of how testing records connect to public payment follows the evidence across programs.

What Did the Accutest Environmental Testing Settlement Cover?

The federal settlement covered allegations about certain soil and water samples analyzed in Accutest’s semi-volatile and extraction laboratories from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013. Federal clients included the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency. The public purchase was environmental analytical work, and the Justice Department alleged departures from the EPA methods used to perform it.

New Jersey’s separate settlement agreement addressed state-funded testing and laboratory-regulation matters. Its extraction allegations concerned certain periods between 2007 and June 2013. New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection considered the analytical results usable, while the agreement required corrections and client notification.

Extraction Shakes and Waiting Times Were Part of the Purchased Work

The Justice Department alleged that Accutest did not perform the required number of shakes for wastewater samples and did not wait the required time between shakes. Its announcement tied those steps to extracting material from the sample. For someone who worked in extraction, the allegation concerns a recognizable part of the day’s work: how many cycles occurred and how much time passed between them.

An extraction record can be compared with the required method and the analysis that followed. We connect the recorded cycles and timing to the same sample’s instrument file, final report and government-paid invoice.

Quality-Control Spiking Put the Check Itself in Question

The Justice Department also alleged that Accutest improperly spiked samples with a known compound as part of quality control. Its announcement explained that this could affect the process intended to ensure that material in the sample had been fully extracted.

For a laboratory employee reviewing the work, the spiking record and the extraction record address different parts of the same analysis. We would examine both alongside the reported result and the paid test. In the Justice Department’s allegation, even the quality check needed checking.

Instrument Settings and Calibration Extended the Allegations Beyond Extraction

The Justice Department alleged that Accutest altered settings on its gas chromatography/mass spectrometry machines and disregarded calibration protocols. Those allegations concern the analytical equipment as well as the sample preparation. Original instrument files and calibration records give someone familiar with the equipment a way to explain what the final report leaves out.

Testing Outside Its Certification

Accutest’s internal-audit disclosure also addressed analyses outside its certification. The company identified 97 analytes or parameters out of roughly 2,300 evaluated. For an insider, the relevant connection is between the parameter analyzed, the laboratory’s certification and the analysis delivered to the client.

The federal settlement also required Accutest to comply with its certifying bodies’ notice requirements and notify clients who could have been affected by the alleged conduct. A client notice can connect the laboratory’s internal review with the people who relied on its work.

An Employee’s Case and Audits Examined Accutest’s Testing

A former Accutest employee brought the qui tam case. New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection separately audited the laboratory, and the company made its own internal-audit disclosure. Those events identify different sources of information about the laboratory: an employee’s account, regulatory review and the company’s own examination.

If you are considering reporting environmental testing fraud, what you personally saw gives those different records context. We work with you to connect the method you know, the analysis sent to the customer and the public payment behind it. An employee’s technical account can explain a discrepancy that the finished report alone does not reveal.

Federal and State Settlements Had Separate Payment Terms

The federal agreement called for $500,000 principal installments and separately provided $600,000 for the whistleblower’s legal fees. We see a familiar bargain in that agreement: Accutest committed to payments while admitting none of the alleged shortcuts.

New Jersey announced its $2 million settlement on December 10, 2015. It covered laboratory-regulation matters alongside the whistleblower case, allocating $920,000 to regulatory penalties. The state agreement specified four principal installments of the same size as the federal installments.

What Were the Agreed Accutest Share Terms Per Installment?

Under the federal agreement, the whistleblower’s share was payable per installment: 20% of each payment the United States actually received. New Jersey’s agreement likewise provided a share from each installment the state received. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

Does a Settlement Announcement Prove Cash or a Whistleblower Payment?

A settlement announcement establishes the agreed obligation, while a payment record establishes receipt. Accutest’s installment terms distinguish the company’s commitment, the government’s receipt and the whistleblower’s share of that receipt.

What Connects a Bad Test or Substituted Sample to Government Payment?

The connection is the reported analysis and the government-paid invoice or acceptance decision that used it. In Accutest’s case, the relevant comparison follows the required method through extraction, quality control, instrument output and the final report. An insider who knows which steps occurred can explain how the delivered analysis differs from the method the customer purchased.

At Tetra Tech EC, the alleged deception came before laboratory analysis. The Justice Department alleged that technicians replaced potentially contaminated Hunters Point samples with clean soil, with financial consequences that included payment for nonconforming Navy cleanup work, performance fees and avoided remediation. Accutest’s allegations instead reached the extraction and analytical steps inside the laboratory.

Sample-location and custody records address what arrived for testing, while extraction and instrument records address what happened afterward. Our questions and answers about environmental fraud and public money connect those technical differences to the funding questions. With you, we follow the relevant sample and reported result to the customer and the payment.

You Know What Happened Inside the Test

If you saw extraction steps skipped, quality checks mishandled or instrument settings changed on government-paid testing, talk with our whistleblower experts about the work behind the result. We build the case with your laboratory knowledge and bring in environmental testing fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand how the technical evidence connects to public payment. We stay with you throughout the process, building your strongest environmental testing whistleblower case.