Fluor Hanford: HAMMER Lobbying Costs Charged to DOE

Fluor Hanford agreed to pay $1.1 million to resolve allegations over HAMMER lobbying costs charged to DOE. The government alleged that the contractor used Department of Energy funds to lobby Congress and other federal officials for more money for the first-responder training center it operated. Money Congress had allocated to the program allegedly paid for the effort to get Congress to allocate more.

The Justice Department announced the False Claims Act settlement on April 3, 2013. A former Fluor employee brought the whistleblower case, and the United States took it over.

What HAMMER Was and What Fluor Was Paid to Do

Fluor Hanford LLC contracted with the Department of Energy to manage and operate the HAMMER Center between 2005 and 2009. HAMMER stands for Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response. The center provided homeland security and emergency response training to first responders and law-enforcement personnel.

Fluor Hanford performed management and engineering services at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Eastern Washington. Fluor Corporation was its parent. The settlement announcement identifies Fluor Hanford LLC as the company agreeing to pay.

Congress allocated the money to prepare first responders and law-enforcement personnel for crisis situations.

We see a contractor allegedly using the training budget to sell the government on a bigger training budget. Taxpayers financing the pitch as well as the program.

Lobbying Paid From the Department of Energy’s Training Money

Fluor allegedly used Department of Energy funds to influence Congress and other federal officials to increase HAMMER funding. The Justice Department said that use violated the Byrd Amendment’s prohibition on using federal funds for lobbying.

That makes this a specific form of government contractor cost mischarging. The alleged expense served the effort to expand the program’s funding. The money paying for it came from the program itself. The same training center sat on both sides of that transaction, which is why the purpose of the spending matters.

For someone inside a contractor, work to obtain more funding can be familiar: who sought the funding, which officials they sought to influence and which program paid for the activity. Those are the connections at the heart of the government’s allegation here. A description tied to HAMMER would tell us the program involved. It would leave the central question open: what did the money pay for?

In a lobbying-cost case, we examine the contract and billing evidence together: the funded work, the activity behind the charge and the records connecting the expense to the government. A cost entry can locate the spending. Knowledge of the work can explain its purpose.

The Former Employee and the Government’s Investigation

The Department of Energy Office of Inspector General helped investigate the case. The Justice Department’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington handled it.

The allegations that became the government’s case came from inside Fluor. That is the employee’s concrete contribution to this outcome: the government pursued the conduct raised in the whistleblower case and reached a settlement with the contractor. We work with the insider who knows what the money actually bought.

How Much Money Can a Whistleblower Get From a Qui Tam Lawsuit?

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. In the Fluor matter, the Justice Department announced that the former employee would receive a share of the settlement as a whistleblower reward.

Another Hanford Case Involved Alleged Lobbying Charges

In a separate Hanford Waste Treatment Plant case, the government also alleged that Bechtel entities charged prohibited lobbying costs to the government.

You Know What the Program Paid For

If you know how a contractor charged lobbying expenses to Department of Energy work, speak with our whistleblower experts about what the money really paid for. We build the case around your knowledge of the work and its costs, bring in government procurement whistleblower lawyers who understand Energy Department contracting, and stay beside you through the pursuit of a recovery.