Envistacom: The President Who Helped Write the Government’s Estimates

Envistacom’s former president and co-founder helped carry out a procurement fraud scheme involving sham quotes and contractor-written government cost estimates for contracts totaling over $7.8 million, according to the Justice Department’s account of the criminal trial. He helped create the documents presented to government buyers as independent. The paperwork offered the appearance of competition while concealing who had prepared it.

Sham High Quotes Made the Price Look Tested

According to the Justice Department’s account of the criminal trial, the former president, Envistacom’s former vice president and another company’s owner prepared and procured sham quotations. The scheme ran at least from September 2014 through November 2016. They also made false statements and left out material information about whether the quotes were competitive and the estimates independent.

The high quotations supplied a false comparison for the buyer. A price can look attractive when the alternatives have been arranged to make it look that way. The losing quote has a job to do: help the intended supplier get the award. The field’s broader defense procurement bid-rigging cases show the same problem with offers presented as rivals.

We see the people seeking the money manufacturing their own price check. For an employee who handled the quotes, the question reaches behind the prices to the people who chose them and the instructions they gave.

Independent Government Cost Estimates Written by the Contractor

The Justice Department’s account of the criminal trial describes Envistacom’s executives and the other company’s owner fraudulently preparing independent government cost estimates and other procurement documents. They represented those estimates to contracting officials as legitimate and independent.

That put the same problem on both sides of the purchase. The quotations supplied the supposed competition, and the government cost estimates supplied another supposedly independent view of the price. The people behind the scheme helped prepare both.

If you worked on an estimate, you may know who supplied the numbers, who drafted the document and what the contracting official was told about its preparation. We connect that knowledge to the version used for the award, so the difference between the document’s appearance and its actual origin becomes visible.

The Business Behind the Government Purchase

The company whose name appears on a quote, the business that prepared it and the business expecting payment are separate questions we examine with an insider. The award and the supplier relationships help connect a manufactured comparison to the government purchase it supported.

A study of private military and security companies gives a useful view of that visibility problem. In Hidden Costs: US Private Military and Security Companies and the Risks of Corruption and Conflict, published by Transparency International Defence and Security in 2022, the researchers found that gaps in subcontractor information obscured conflicts of interest and the extent of government funding reaching those companies below the prime. They also described government reliance on primes to vet lower-tier subcontractors. An insider may know the supplier relationships that the finished award information leaves out.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Fraud?

The useful evidence of defense contractor fraud connects who created a quote or estimate, what the buyer was told about it and the award or payment it supported. The person who handled the preparation may know something the final document conceals.

We start with the discrepancy you saw. If someone supplied a supposed rival’s price, the communications behind that number belong beside the submitted quotation. If a contractor prepared an estimate presented as independent, the preparation and transmission of that estimate belong beside the representation made to the government. Those comparisons explain how the buyer received a false impression of independence.

We examine which purchase the quote concerned, which business was meant to win and how the award connected to the government’s payment. Where a prime vendor passed the documents along, what it received and what it submitted are distinct parts of that account.

A proposal employee may understand the pricing instructions. A supplier may know why it was asked for a quote it was never meant to win. We work with that specific knowledge to connect the decision inside the business to the representation outside it. You can talk to us about what happened even if your view begins with one part of the transaction.

The President’s Role in the Procurement Fraud Conviction

On March 29, 2023, a federal jury in the Northern District of Georgia convicted Envistacom’s former president and co-founder, its former vice president and the other company’s owner. Each was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and major fraud.

The Army Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigated with the Justice Department. Its trial account connects the executives directly to the preparation of the supposed comparisons that supported the awards.

The Same False Competition in Civil Defense Cases

Berg Companies agreed to a $3.3 million civil settlement over alleged bid rigging involving rigid wall shelters for military customers. In its settlement announcement, the Justice Department said Berg admitted coordinating inflated quotes with a prime vendor and sub-vendors so that the sub-vendors would win at inflated prices. The manufacturer supplied a higher comparison price for its own shelters. The supposed competing offer helped the other seller win.

S.A.F.E. Structure Designs, U.S.A. Manufacturing and their owner agreed to a $1 million civil settlement over alleged fraudulent bids on Defense Logistics Agency purchases. In their settlement agreement, the settling parties admitted submitting courtesy bids they did not intend to win, paying other vendors for quotes and supplying quotes from their commonly owned companies as though they were independent competitors. They also admitted knowing that the quotes went into bid packages submitted to the agency and that payments passed through the prime vendor. Here, the agreement follows the manufactured competition into the government purchase and the payment to the supplier.

Those civil cases show why the work behind a losing quote can matter to a False Claims Act whistleblower case. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

When You Know Who Wrote the Quote

If you saw a rival’s quote or a government estimate being prepared by the people seeking the award, speak with our whistleblower experts about the people and documents behind it. We work beside you to build the case around who chose the figures, what the buyer was told and where the government money went. We stay with you through the case and bring in defense procurement whistleblower lawyers who understand fabricated competition.