Belcon and Roof Systems of Maine: Thinner Flashing and the Wrong Screws
The Belcon and Roof Systems of Maine settlement required Belcon Enterprises to pay $439,500 to resolve allegations of nonconforming work on Army National Guard and Navy construction projects. For someone who knows what went into a government construction job, the allegations are concrete: altered wall panels, thinner flashing and the wrong screws in a copper installation.
Belcon Enterprises, formerly Roof Systems of Maine, was based in Bangor and provided roofing and siding services to commercial and industrial installations throughout Maine. The Justice Department’s March 4, 2016 announcement described alleged false claims connected to its work as a subcontractor on three prime government construction contracts between 2010 and 2014.
Army National Guard Wall Panels
At the Army National Guard’s Armed Services Reserve Center in Brunswick, Maine, the government alleged that Belcon knowingly billed and was paid for metal wall panel installation that failed to meet the contract’s requirements. The alleged departures concerned both the panels and the way workers installed them: Belcon directed or permitted resizing and alteration, installed panels in incorrect locations, and omitted sealant throughout the installation.
Someone familiar with the installation could explain where a panel belonged, whether it had been altered, and how the sealant work compared with the specification. Connecting that knowledge to the work billed is what gives the physical discrepancy its significance in a whistleblower case.
Navy Flashing, Trim and Fasteners
At the Navy’s Power Plant Building in Cutler, Maine, the government alleged that Belcon used flashing and trim that were thinner, less expensive and made by a different manufacturer than the contract required. At Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Building 86 in Kittery, Maine, the government alleged that Belcon used plain carbon-steel screws on a copper installation instead of the required copper, brass or Series 300 stainless-steel fasteners. The Justice Department said the alleged substitution would result in galvanic corrosion and safety and structural issues.
We would call corrosion and structural problems a steep price for the wrong screws. The government’s allegation puts the stakes plainly: taxpayers bought a specified copper installation and faced a safety problem from the metal allegedly used to hold it together. For a purchasing or installation specialist, the material actually ordered and installed belongs beside the material specified in the contract. In Crane Company’s separate Navy valve case, the government alleged that valve seats and bolting failed military specifications.
How a Subcontractor’s Work Reaches Government Payment
Belcon’s place in the contracting chain was central to the allegations. The government said it knowingly caused false claims to be submitted through work performed as a subcontractor. At Brunswick, the announcement expressly connected the nonconforming installation to work for which Belcon allegedly billed and received payment.
In cases involving prime contractors and subcontractors, the work and the information supporting a government claim can originate farther down the chain than the company submitting it. That makes the subcontractor’s account of what it supplied important to understanding the government’s bill.
For this kind of construction case, we connect the contract and its approved changes to the installed work, the inspection or acceptance record, and the payment request. Those documents answer different questions: what the government bought, what someone said had been delivered, and what was billed. The link between them matters especially when the person who knows the material or installation works for a subcontractor.
A Whistleblower Brought the Allegations
A whistleblower brought the Belcon allegations to the government’s attention through a qui tam case under the False Claims Act. The government joined the case and filed its own lawsuit. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maine, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service represented the federal government.
The settlement announcement said the government would pay the whistleblower a share of the proceeds. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.
What Evidence Shows Off-Spec Defense Construction Work?
We help connect evidence of defense contractor fraud to both the government payment and what the contractor knew about the work. For a construction insider, that can mean explaining who directed an alteration or permitted a substitution. Belcon’s settlement addressed allegations of knowingly causing false claims and knowingly using off-contract materials.
Your part of that account may be the panel installation, the flashing purchase or the fasteners used on a particular job. It may instead be the inspection record or the billing that followed the work. We work with you to connect that knowledge to the government’s purchase and the decisions behind the alleged substitution.
You Know What Went Onto the Building
If you know the materials or installation differed from what a defense construction contract required, speak to our whistleblower experts about what went onto the building. We connect your knowledge of the work to the government payment and bring in defense contractor whistleblower lawyers who understand construction specifications and subcontract claims to build your strongest defense construction whistleblower case. We stay beside you as partners throughout the case, including the concerns you have about speaking up.
