How to Report Defense Contractor Fraud: What You Saw and What the Government Paid For

What to include when reporting defense contractor fraud comes down to what the contractor told the government, what you saw instead, and the work or payment affected. You may have seen hours billed for work never performed, a test report that left out a failure or an invoice carrying costs the supplier never charged. If you know where the company’s account parted from the work, speak with our whistleblower experts about that difference, the dates and the records you already know.

The Promise Behind the Government’s Payment

A useful first account connects the contractor’s promise to the record that contradicts it. The promise might concern hours worked, a part’s condition, a supplier’s price or the security of a system holding defense information. The money can follow through a contract award, an invoice, acceptance of delivered goods, a financing request or a performance fee.

The contract’s payment terms explain why that connection matters. A cost-reimbursement contract pays allowable costs, while labor hours and qualifications affect payment under a time-and-materials contract. A fixed-price case may turn on the pricing information supplied during negotiations or the goods promised for delivery. We work with you to connect what happened inside the business to what the government agreed to buy.

The Defense Work and Your Part in It

Your role helps explain which part of the transaction you can see. An accountant may know where a charge moved, a laboratory employee may know which result changed, and a purchasing employee may know what the supplier actually charged. The agency, program, work site, contract or subcontract, purchase order and relevant dates give that knowledge a home. A task order or line item can narrow it further when you know it.

The prime contracts with the government, and suppliers may sit several businesses below it. In a subcontractor false-claims case, we need to understand who supplied whom, which business submitted the charge and what each person knew. The person who created a record, the manager who changed it and the person who approved the bill may each explain a different decision.

Transparency International’s 2022 report Hidden Costs: US Private Military and Security Companies and the Risks of Corruption and Conflict found that missing subcontractor information obscured potential conflicts and the extent of government funding reaching those companies. It recommended reporting subcontractors’ ownership and the itemized value of their services. That is why the relationship between the businesses belongs beside the invoice in our conversation: you may know who controls the supplier whose name appears on the bill.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Fraud?

Evidence of defense contractor fraud connects the requirement, the contractor’s statement, the conflicting record and the government money. Your first conversation with us can begin with the part you know. You do not need every document below, a complete calculation or access to another department’s files to explain what you saw.

False Timesheets and the Work Behind Them

If you want to report defense contractor false timesheets, tell us about the work actually performed and how the hours reached the billed job or purchase-order code. The original time entry, later edits, work record and manager’s instruction can tell different parts of that story. We want to understand who entered the hours, who changed them and who approved the charge.

False labor charges can concern work never performed, work charged to the wrong contract or workers billed at a category their qualifications did not support. A resume, required labor category and billed rate answer the qualification question. Time entries and work assignments answer the question of where the hours belonged.

Subcontractor Invoices and the Price Inside Them

If you want to report defense subcontractor false invoices, we look with you at the supplier’s charge, the subcontractor’s invoice and the amount passed to the government. The subcontract, ownership relationship, markup instructions and reimbursement request explain how the price changed along the way.

Sikorsky Support Services and Derco Aerospace agreed to pay $70 million to resolve allegations of overcharging the Navy for aircraft parts and materials. The Justice Department’s account alleged that the companies, under the same parent, added a fixed 32% to supplier cost and sought Navy reimbursement for the marked-up amounts. A former Derco employee brought the whistleblower case, and the government joined it.

The whistleblower’s amended complaint alleged that the billing software helped conceal the price increase:

We see the absurdity in that allegation: the markup disappeared from view while it stayed in the government’s bill. Someone who knows the vendor cost and the software’s pricing instructions can explain what the face of the invoice leaves out.

Falsified Test Results and False Certificates

If you want to report military contractor falsified test results, tell us about the required test, the original result, the altered or omitted result and the affected part, lot or delivery. The test record and certificate connect the shop floor or laboratory to the government’s acceptance of the goods. Who changed or approved the result matters alongside what the result said.

The Defense Contract Management Agency’s responsibilities include delegated quality and delivery oversight. A DCMA quality assurance representative reporting false certificates may know the specification, inspection record and acceptance event that connect the discrepancy to government work. We assess the facts and the reporting considerations that come with your role together.

Product identity can also expose a false price. Insitu agreed to a $25 million settlement after the Justice Department alleged that it proposed prices based on new drone parts while planning to use, and using, less expensive recycled or refurbished parts on Navy and Special Operations Command contracts. The proposed parts and the parts actually supplied were the comparison that mattered.

Cybersecurity Claims and the System Actually Assessed

If you want to report defense contractor cybersecurity misrepresentation, tell us about the covered system, the controls promised and what the assessment actually examined. Dated assessments and promised corrections can connect an internal security problem to the representation made for defense work.

In its settlement, MORSECORP admitted submitting a score of 104 in January 2021 and learning from a consultant in July 2022 that its score was actually -142. It did not update the government reporting system until June 2023. We see the problem: the company knew its score was wrong and left its customer with the old answer. For someone inside the security team, the consultant’s assessment and the submission history can tell that story.

Other Records That Can Explain the Charge

The same comparison applies to costs, bids, sourcing and performance fees. These record families help us connect your account to the particular statement or payment involved.

The Defense Contract Audit Agency performs accounting and pricing audits and supplies investigative evidence. DCAA auditor evidence of contractor fraud can connect accounting entries and pricing submissions to the government’s bill. If you are a whistleblower who knows what an audit found, we want to understand the underlying records, the finding and the company’s response.

What You Saw, What You Were Told and What Is Missing

We can work with an account that clearly separates your own observations, another person’s explanation and the conclusion you drew from them. Seeing a time entry change gives us one fact to examine. Being told who ordered the change gives us another lead. The submitted invoice may still be in someone else’s department, and we can discuss that gap without asking you to fill it with a guess.

Your role and period of access help us understand how you learned about the issue. We also discuss who holds the other records and which people know the next part of the transaction. Our initial conversation can start with what you remember seeing in a company system or an internal message.

How Do I Report a Defense Contractor?

To report a Department of Defense contractor, speak with our whistleblower experts about a False Claims Act case based on the defense work and records you know. That whistleblower route is known as qui tam. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. We assess the connection between your information and the government’s payment, then bring in defense contractor fraud whistleblower lawyers with the experience your case needs.

If you have already raised the issue internally, contacted the government or learned of a company disclosure, that history belongs in our conversation. Who received the information, when they received it and what response followed help us understand what happened next. Questions about confidentiality, your own involvement or your protection as a whistleblower are matters we work through with you and defense contractor fraud whistleblower counsel.

When Your Work Involves Classified Information

If your concern involves classified defense work, speak with us about how we can assess it together. Our first conversation can begin with unclassified information you are authorized to discuss, while we address the handling questions with you and defense contractor fraud whistleblower counsel.

Put Your Knowledge to Work

If you know which hours changed, which test disappeared or which supplier charge grew before it reached the military, talk with our whistleblower experts about your defense contractor fraud case. We build the strategy for your strongest case, bring in defense contractor fraud whistleblower lawyers who know these contracts and stay alongside you as the case develops.