University of California Regents at UC Davis: Overlapping DOE and NSF Research Grants

The Regents of the University of California agreed to pay $499,700 to settle allegations that UC Davis obtained overlapping DOE and NSF research grants through false and misleading funding statements. The government alleged that UC Davis failed to disclose research tasks already supported by other federal grants and included accomplishments from those grants in reports to the Department of Energy. If you know which award paid for the work, you may see a contradiction that the finished progress report conceals.

The Justice Department’s December 11, 2014 announcement described civil False Claims Act allegations involving the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and an earlier federal grant.

This federal grant fraud case turns on the account of the research given to the agencies funding it. The government’s allegation reached both the work proposed for funding and the accomplishments later reported to support it.

What UC Davis Allegedly Told the Funding Agencies

The government alleged that UC Davis concealed overlapping support and gave funding agencies an inaccurate account of the research. Its allegations covered both the work described before an award and the accomplishments reported afterward.

Overlapping Grants and Specific Research Tasks

UC Davis allegedly failed to disclose the duplicative and overlapping nature of research associated with the Department of Energy grant, the National Science Foundation grant and a previous federal grant. The government also alleged that the university inaccurately described research funded by the foundation and the earlier award.

The allegation went down to specific tasks: work being funded with Energy Department money was receiving, or had already received, support from the other grants. According to the government, UC Davis failed to disclose that support.

Same task. Another grant.

Accomplishments Listed in DOE Reports

In progress reports and renewal applications submitted to the Department of Energy, UC Davis allegedly listed accomplishments achieved under the National Science Foundation grant and the earlier grant alongside accomplishments achieved under the Energy Department grant.

The government alleged that UC Davis’s false and misleading statements caused the agencies to approve duplicative funding they otherwise would not have awarded.

Why the Source of Research Funding Matters

The alleged overlap put scarce federal research money behind tasks other federal grants were already supporting or had supported. The Department of Energy’s inspector general described the agency’s purpose as funding innovative research, while objecting to research simultaneously funded by other federal agencies.

The National Science Foundation’s inspector general explained who loses when the same research draws money from more than one agency:

We see the unfairness in that account: another research proposal competes for money already committed to work the government has funded elsewhere. Taxpayers are allegedly paying again.

What the UC Davis Settlement Required

The Regents agreed to the civil payment, and UC Davis also agreed to supplement its research training with an hour-long module for undergraduate, graduate and post-doctorate students. The module would cover time and effort reporting, reasonable costs and other federal-grant requirements.

The training subjects connect the settlement to daily research administration. Those subjects sit beside the case’s central question of which grant supported the tasks and accomplishments described to the government.

The investigation involved the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General, the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

For overlapping research grants, we build the comparison with you: which tasks each award supported, what other funding covered and what each agency was told. In the UC Davis allegations, those statements included descriptions of previously funded research, progress reports and renewal applications.

We examine those accounts together. Information about other support places that work beside the funding already available for it. Progress reports and renewal applications show which accomplishments the recipient presented to the funding agency.

The person who knows the work may be able to explain a mismatch that reading the reports alone would miss. A grant administrator may recognize the earlier award behind a task. A researcher may know when an accomplishment was achieved and which project supported it. Someone involved in preparing a renewal may know how the description of that accomplishment reached the application.

That is the value of your knowledge inside the research program. We work with you to connect the specific task to its funding and the account given to the government, including what the people preparing or approving that account knew. The UC Davis allegations make the comparison unusually clear: what each grant funded, what the university described and what the agencies were told they were paying for.

Other Grant Cases Put Different Records Under Scrutiny

Other grant cases show why the comparison has to follow the particular representation.

The University of Puerto Rico grant settlement concerned allegations that payroll allocations to NASA, Department of Energy and National Science Foundation grants failed time-and-effort requirements despite certifications of compliance. The government described unreconciled budget reports. That case puts effort records beside the assurances made about them, a useful companion to the time-and-effort training required in the UC Davis settlement.

The Cleveland Clinic grant settlement concerned allegations that applications and progress reports for NIH awards omitted a principal investigator’s pending or active foreign research support and already committed research time. Like the UC Davis allegations, that account makes the information about other support part of the funding decision.

At LangInnov, the government alleged that National Science Foundation grant charges duplicated payroll already funded by the Paycheck Protection Program. That SBIR payroll allegation concerns the salary expense itself. The allegations against UC Davis centered on overlapping research tasks and the description of accomplishments.

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. That whistleblower reward gives someone who knows the grant records a financial stake in recovering money for the public.

You Know Which Award Paid for the Work

If you recognize a research task or accomplishment in reports to different funding agencies, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about the grants behind it. We work alongside you to build your strongest grant fraud whistleblower case around your knowledge of the research and bring in federal grant fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand overlapping awards and research reporting. From the first conversation through the pursuit of a recovery, you have us on your side.