False Timecards and Idle-Time Billing: The Government Paid for Hours Nobody Worked

Government contractor timecard fraud turns hours nobody worked into charges the government pays. At the Department of Energy’s Hanford site, CH2M Hill admitted in its criminal non-prosecution resolution that managers accepted full overtime claims after workers left. Other contractors admitted collecting reimbursement for excessive idle time when management had not assigned enough work. If you keep time, assign crews or approve labor charges, you may recognize the gap before anyone reviewing the invoice can see it. The job ended. The timecard still showed a full shift. Taxpayers paid for the difference.

What Government Contractor Timecard Fraud Looks Like

False timecards overstate how long someone worked. Excessive idle-time billing charges the government for unallowable hours during which employees had too little assigned work to fill their shifts. The Hanford cases show both practices, with managers accepting the time or directing how employees recorded it.

An early departure leaves a discrepancy between the hours worked and the hours claimed. An empty work schedule leaves a discrepancy between the assignment and the full shift billed. A premium overtime code changes the rate attached to the hours. A timekeeper sees the entry. A supervisor knows what work was available. Someone in billing sees what went to the government.

The revealing question is who knew about that difference. In the CH2M Hill case, the company admitted in its criminal non-prosecution resolution that managers accepted full overtime claims after workers finished the job and left. In the later Bechtel and AECOM case, the companies admitted that management knew employees lacked sufficient assignments and continued billing for excessive idle time. Both admissions put management decisions inside the billing practice.

How a Timecard Becomes a Government Claim

The contractor’s reimbursement request carries the timecard problem into government spending. The sequence runs from the work assignment to the recorded hours, management’s acceptance, the contractor’s claim and the government’s payment.

At Washington River Protection Solutions, the government alleged that managers directed employees to record full shifts after failing to assign enough work. The company’s contract reimbursed claimed allowable costs, including labor. The company admitted that it sought and received reimbursement for unallowable excessive idle time. The cost of the unfilled shift reached the government through the contractor’s own billing.

What Happens When a Supervisor Approves Idle Time Billed to a DOE Contractor?

When a supervisor approves idle time billed to a DOE contractor, the approval connects the recorded hours to management’s decision to charge them. We examine what the supervisor knew about the assignment, how the time was recorded and what the contract allowed the contractor to charge.

Which Contract Type Makes Time the Payment Measure?

A cost-reimbursement contract pays allowable costs under its terms, including reimbursable labor. Washington River Protection Solutions operated under a cost-plus-award-fee contract for Hanford’s Tank Farms. Its reimbursable labor costs were the route through which excessive idle time became a government charge.

A time-and-materials contract uses specified hourly labor rates and allowable material costs. A labor-hour contract uses the hourly structure without contractor-supplied materials. Under the hourly-payment requirements, timekeeping, the employee’s qualifications for the billed labor category and supporting records matter. The hourly rate includes wages, overhead, general and administrative expense, and profit. The rate on the government invoice therefore covers more than the worker’s wage.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

The useful evidence connects what happened during the shift with what the contractor represented and charged. Your knowledge of the job supplies context that a timecard or invoice alone cannot show.

Daily supervisor reports and timecards show the work assigned and the hours claimed. Phase codes, payroll classifications and billing categories show how the contractor described that work when it requested payment. We compare those records with you to connect what happened on the job, who approved the time and what the government paid.

Management approval deserves attention of its own. Unique Characteristics of Management Override Fraud Cases, published in the Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting in 2019, compared occupational fraud involving missing controls with fraud involving managers overriding existing controls. Among the fraud cases studied, stronger controls were associated with a greater likelihood of managers overriding controls rather than controls being absent. The paper explains why the people running a control matter:

Unique Characteristics of Management Override Fraud Cases, Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 2019

For timekeeping, we examine how approval worked in practice and what the approver knew about the hours.

Hanford Contractors Billed for Different Kinds of Unworked Time

The Hanford cases show managers accepting hours after workers left, leaving crews without assignments and continuing to bill after learning of an investigation.

CH2M Hill Billed Full Overtime Blocks After Workers Left

CH2M Hill agreed in 2013 to pay $16,550,000 to resolve its civil False Claims Act liability over timecard fraud. Its Tank Farms contract covered the management and cleanup of underground tanks containing radioactive and hazardous waste between 1999 and 2008.

In the agreed facts supporting its criminal non-prosecution agreement, CH2M Hill admitted that managers accepted inflated time claims. Hourly workers insisted on overtime being offered in eight-hour blocks. Managers accepted the practice of workers completing the particular job, leaving Hanford and claiming the full block even when the job took less time.

The incentive reached management. Without enough overtime volunteers, the company risked missing projects tied to performance fees. Those incentives also affected certain managers’ bonuses. The agreed facts described supervisors helping the routine timecard fraud escape detection by internal auditors and law enforcement.

The company wanted the job completed to earn its incentives. Taxpayers paid for the hours after it was done.

Bechtel and AECOM Billed Idle Time They Knew About

Bechtel and AECOM agreed to a $57.75 million settlement in 2020 over labor charges from 2009 to 2019 at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. The workforce included electricians, millwrights, pipefitters and other craft workers building and maintaining the plant.

In their admitted statement of facts, the companies acknowledged overcharging the Department of Energy for unreasonable and unallowable idle time. Management failed to schedule enough work, knew that workers could remain idle for several hours and improperly billed the resulting labor costs.

The companies admitted continuing the billing even after they knew they were under investigation. The gap between the assignment and the charge was already known inside the business. Billing continued anyway.

Washington River Protection Solutions Charged for Unfilled Shifts

Washington River Protection Solutions paid $6.5 million in the settlement announced in June 2025. It admitted seeking and receiving reimbursement for excessive idle time from 2017 to 2024 and admitted that it had not scheduled or assigned sufficient work.

An employee’s whistleblower case brought the labor charges forward.

Hanford Mission Integration Solutions Charged Idle Time to Site Services

Hanford Mission Integration Solutions paid $3.45 million in 2026 to resolve its own labor-billing case. Its prime contract covered infrastructure and site services supporting Hanford’s environmental cleanup, with reimbursement for claimed allowable costs.

The company admitted seeking and receiving reimbursement for unallowable excessive idle time from 2020 to 2025. It also admitted that, at times, it had failed to schedule or assign sufficient work. An employee brought the allegations in whistleblower cases resolved by the settlement.

Here, the same comparison mattered in site services: the work management assigned, the hours employees recorded and the costs the government reimbursed.

Overtime Codes Can Change What the Government Pays

A government contract overtime code used when an employee did not work can carry false hours into a payment request. A code can also inflate the rate for time that was worked. The assignment, hours and conditions for premium pay answer different questions.

An earlier Washington River Protection Solutions case shows the rate problem. In its 2017 settlement announcement, the Department of Justice described allegations covering October 2008 through July 2013. The company agreed to pay $5.275 million over alleged false timecards, overtime and premium pay, and internal audit failures.

The government alleged that workers, with management’s acceptance, failed to account fully for claimed overtime. It also alleged that the company allowed workers to use an Emergency Call In code carrying higher overtime pay when no emergency or urgency existed. The agreement with the workforce required an actual emergency and less than 16 hours’ advance notice for that premium.

The premium code supplied the reason for a higher charge. The actual call-in circumstances supplied the comparison.

When the Work Report and the Payment Record Disagree

Other civilian contract cases show how the description of labor can change between the worksite and the government’s payment request.

Nagan Construction admitted misclassifying skilled work and underpaying employees on the Merchant Marine Academy’s Delano Hall project and the South Bronx Job Corps Center project. Its 2019 civil settlement was $435,000. The government’s complaint compared daily supervisor reports with certified payrolls submitted alongside monthly payment requests:

United States of America and State of New York ex rel. Soner Yasti v. Nagan Construction and Nadir Uygan, government complaint-in-intervention, paragraph 34, DOJ case page

The work had happened. The government-facing description changed its classification. For a supervisor, the daily report could hold the contradiction that the certified payroll concealed.

The G4S guard-training case supplies another comparison. The State Department contract for local guards at the U.S. Embassy in Bratislava required 80 hours of basic training for each guard and prohibited using guards who had not completed it. The government alleged that G4S failed to provide the required training to certain guards and failed to document it accurately. The training record and the contract’s staffing requirement connected the missing hours to claims for payment.

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. The Hanford cases show what employee knowledge can contribute to such a recovery.

Four employees brought the Bechtel and AECOM labor-charging allegations, and the government joined their case. The settlement provided $13.75 million for those whistleblowers together. In the later Washington River Protection Solutions case, the settlement provided $1.4 million for the employee whistleblower.

Those awards came from cases about the work employees saw and the labor costs their employers charged. If your knowledge connects those two, we can assess the case with you.

You Know What Happened During the Shift

If the assignments, timecards and government charges tell different stories, speak with our whistleblower experts about the hours your contractor billed. We build the case with you around what happened on the job and who approved the charges, bringing in government contract whistleblower lawyers who understand labor billing and cost reimbursement. We stay beside you as we pursue your strongest whistleblower case.