Foresee Results / Verint Americas: The Website-Assessment Method the Government Did Not Buy

Foresee Results and Verint Americas agreed to pay $7 million over allegations that they supplied a website-assessment method the government did not buy while representing that they used American Customer Satisfaction Index methodology. Interior’s Federal Consulting Group had awarded a five-year contract in 2011 to measure public satisfaction with government websites and recommend improvements. The government said it expected ACSI measurements and received assessments made using a different method. If you worked on the assessments, the distinction is concrete: what the customer was told and how the work was actually done.

The Justice Department announced the civil False Claims Act settlement on July 21, 2023. Two companies brought the whistleblower claims. The settlement allocated $1.54 million collectively to them from the agreed recovery.

What the Government Bought

The Federal Consulting Group bought website assessment and improvement services with an identified methodology behind them. Foresee agreed to measure the public’s satisfaction with certain government websites and recommend how to improve it. According to the government’s account, the purchasing office understood that Foresee would apply ACSI methodology to provide federal agencies with an ACSI measurement.

That makes the method part of the purchased service. In this kind of government software and assessment case, the important promise can sit behind the result the customer sees.

The allegation was that Foresee represented the use of ACSI while using something else.

We see the absurdity in selling a method by name and treating the method itself as optional. On the government’s account, that was the gap taxpayers paid for.

Why the Work Behind the Score Matters

A finished assessment can show a score without revealing how the underlying work was done. For someone who knows the work, the useful comparison is between the promised methodology and the actual assessment process. That is where technical knowledge can explain a discrepancy that the final report leaves hidden.

The 2023 Review of Economics and Finance study Procurement Fraud in the Public Sector: An Analysis of Fraud Triangle Elements and Workplace Spirituality examined government procurement fraud among Malaysian public-sector employees. Its discussion of earlier work identifies difficulty evaluating performance quality, missing information and the absence of an audit trail as opportunities for fraud.

For a purchased assessment method, we would apply that insight to the work behind the report. An analyst may be able to explain the scoring process. A person reviewing the deliverable may know what the customer was told. Someone handling the contract may know which methodology was promised. Connecting those accounts is how we examine whether the same service appears in the contract, the work and the representation to the government.

The company’s own explanation matters too. We want to understand who knew which method was being used and what they said about it. The False Claims Act reaches knowing false claims and false records that matter to payment.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

For an assessment-method allegation, useful proof connects the promised method, the work performed, what the government was told and the payment sought. We examine that connection with the person who understands the work. The relevant government contract billing evidence gives the technical account its place in the purchase.

We compare the contract with the assessment records and the reports sent to the customer, with you explaining what the documents mean. The work may have passed through several hands, and your knowledge helps us connect the technical decisions to what the government bought.

Who could approve a change in method is part of the story. We examine that question alongside what the customer was told, with your account of the work guiding the comparison.

You may know the assessment process without having handled the invoice. Or you may have reviewed the customer-facing description without running the analysis. We work with you to understand how your part of the work connects to the government’s purchase.

Can a Contractor Be a Whistleblower?

A company can bring a qui tam case. Here, the Justice Department identified two companies as the private parties that brought claims under the False Claims Act’s whistleblower provisions. The settlement resolved their claims as well as the government’s allegations.

The useful point for contractors and other industry participants is access to the purchase and the work. An organization’s knowledge may help explain what a technical promise means and whether the delivered service matches it. In this case, the whistleblower companies’ claims concerned the same named methodology that Interior expected to receive.

If your organization knows the promised method or the assessment work, that is a reason to speak with us. We bring procurement expertise to the technical account you know firsthand, and work beside you to build the case.

The Settlement and the Whistleblower Reward

The Justice Department said the companies would receive their whistleblower reward as part of the settlement resolving their claims. The award belongs to the two companies collectively.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

The investigation involved the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, the General Services Administration Office of Inspector General and the Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General.

Other Purchased Capabilities, the Same Comparison

The comparison between a promised capability and the delivered work also appears in other civilian technology purchases. At Hanford, Computer Sciences Corporation faced allegations that it represented an electronic medical-records system as functional and compliant with its contract and Department of Energy requirements. Former employees brought that case. Their knowledge concerned whether the purchased system worked as represented. The Foresee allegation concerned which method produced the purchased assessment.

EMC faced a closer analytical-service allegation. The government alleged that EMC promised transaction-specific comparisons with comparable commercial sales that it knew it could not perform. The alleged failure concerned an analysis EMC had promised to supply.

Those cases give a technical insider a concrete way to explain the problem. What capability did the company sell, what did it represent as delivered, and what did the people doing the work know? In the Foresee case, the named method connects those questions. The person who understands how an assessment was made can bring something the score alone cannot tell us.

You Know How the Assessment Was Made

If you know why the method used on a government contract differs from the method the customer was promised, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about how the assessments were made. We work with you to build your strongest government procurement whistleblower case, bringing in government procurement whistleblower lawyers who understand technology and service contracts. We stay beside you through the case, connecting your knowledge of the assessment work to the promises the government paid for.