Tetra Tech EC: Clean Soil From Somewhere Else

In the Tetra Tech EC Hunters Point settlement, the company paid $57 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations involving substituted soil samples and falsified radiological testing data. The Navy relied on that work to determine whether the former San Francisco shipyard was free from harmful radiation. For someone who collected the soil, ran the tests or reviewed the results, the case starts with a concrete question: did the sample come from the place the report said it did?

The government alleged that Tetra Tech EC instructed technicians to discard potentially contaminated samples and replace them with clean soil before laboratory testing. It also alleged that the company manipulated scan records and benefited through unearned award fees and avoided cleanup work. This is the soil-sampling version of falsified testing: the reported result can conceal the condition the government paid to have examined.

What the Navy Was Paying to Learn

The Navy’s contracts, issued from 2003 through 2014, required Tetra Tech EC to investigate soil and buildings at Hunters Point and remediate areas with excessive radiation. The work was meant to prepare the property for transfer to the City of San Francisco for redevelopment. The government alleged that false testing data let the contractor collect fees it had not earned while avoiding further remediation, reducing its costs and increasing its profits.

The original whistleblower complaint explains the decision a soil test was supposed to support. Soil below the remediation goals could be released for use as fill at Hunters Point or shipped offsite as soil meeting those goals. Soil above the goals required further treatment or handling as radioactive material. According to the complaint, designating soil for release took less time and cost less, giving Tetra Tech EC a financial interest in that designation.

That is where the technical work meets the contract’s payment terms. A defense contract specifies both the work and the evidence supporting payment. At Hunters Point, the alleged financial benefit ran through award fees and cleanup obligations, so the sample, its reported result and the decision about further remediation belong in the same account.

The Map, the Sample and the Laboratory Result

The whistleblowers described a sampling process built around finding the soil with the highest radiation readings. A tractor pulled a detector array over a pad of excavated soil, recording radiation readings with GPS locations. A data analyst was supposed to identify the highest-reading locations, and technicians were supposed to use that information to collect soil for testing. The resulting laboratory analysis helped determine whether the soil could be released, needed more remediation or required disposal at an authorized facility.

The complaint alleged that sampling supervisors departed from those locations and that experienced workers told management. It described one whistleblower reporting that a supervisor:

The same complaint alleged that laboratory readings were regularly lower than the readings indicated by the detector array. It attributed that mismatch to collecting soil away from the highest-reading locations and alleged that the data analyst failed to alert radiological supervisors and regulators. Comparing the original field readings with the laboratory results gave people inside the project a way to question whether the right soil had been sampled.

The government’s later account adds a separate contradiction in the scan database. It alleged that manipulated entries represented the same technician as conducting scans at different locations at the same time. We find the absurdity hard to miss: the database could put a technician in two places at once, but it could not make the soil any cleaner.

The Fencing Test That Allegedly Disappeared

The whistleblower complaint also described rental fencing that allegedly failed radiological checks before its return. A radiological technician reported readings above release levels, and management challenged the equipment’s accuracy. According to the complaint, she used other detectors and again obtained readings above the limits.

The complaint alleged that management wanted to avoid the time and expense of cleaning the fencing or disposing of it as contaminated material. It described instructions to destroy the survey reports and delete computer files containing the survey and laboratory results:

That allegation concerns what happened after a test produced an inconvenient result. The technician’s account connected the original readings, the repeat measurements and the direction to remove the records to a representation that the fencing could leave. The complaint tied those false records to monthly claims for payment to the Navy. For an insider, the decision about what stayed in the file matters as much as the test itself.

Who Can Be a Whistleblower If There Is Defense Contractor Fraud?

Former employees and contractors brought the Hunters Point qui tam cases under the False Claims Act. The Justice Department identified seven whistleblowers in the consolidated cases and said the United States joined them and took over responsibility for pursuing the claims.

The original complaint illustrates that access through different accounts: one whistleblower reported the sampling instructions, while another described her own testing of the rental fencing. We examine what each person knows and how it connects to the contractor’s representations and government payments.

Separate Settlements for False Claims and Environmental Liability

The False Claims Act payment resolved allegations about fabricated work and false data used by the Navy. The government separately recovered $40 million under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as Superfund, in a settlement the court entered on July 2, 2025. That environmental settlement preceded the Justice Department’s announcement of the false-claims payment on August 24, 2026.

The Justice Department put the whistleblowers’ collective share of the settlement at approximately $12 million. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. Speak to one of our whistleblower experts about the sampling, testing or decisions behind the government’s bill.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

In a testing case, we connect what the contract required, what happened in the field and what the contractor represented to obtain government money. At Hunters Point, the allegations make those connections concrete: a mapped sampling location, soil taken elsewhere, conflicting readings, altered scan records and instructions about what results to keep. We assess that evidence of defense contractor fraud with you against the work, acceptance and payment records.

A field technician may know where the sample actually came from. A laboratory worker or data reviewer may know how the result was recorded, while a contract or payment reviewer may know what the contractor submitted to support an award fee. Your part of that sequence can explain a discrepancy that the final report conceals. An insider who knows that the sample came from somewhere else can explain exactly where the report lost its connection to the work.

The problem reaches beyond soil. In its separate criminal deferred prosecution agreement, Bradken admitted allegations concerning falsified tests for Navy steel. The government described tests that concealed steel failing Navy strength and toughness specifications and caused shipbuilders to bill as though it complied. Both matters show why the original technical result and the representation reaching the Navy have to be read together.

A 2026 University of California, Davis Law Review article, Pathways to Protection: An Organization-Centered Approach to Whistleblowing Law, describes organizations that treat compliance as a list of minimum obligations while overlooking their purpose. It names that habit plainly:

You Know Where the Sample Came From

If you saw soil substituted, scan records changed or failed results removed from a Navy cleanup file, speak with our whistleblower experts about the work behind the report. We build your strongest defense contractor whistleblower case with you, bring in defense contractor fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand technical testing and government payments, and stay beside you through the pursuit of a recovery.