Worldwide Language Resources: Untested Linguists, Services Never Provided

In the Worldwide Language Resources settlement, the company and its president agreed to pay $5 million to resolve allegations of supplying untested linguists and billing for services never provided. The government bought language skills for military work overseas, with tests required to establish those skills. The alleged failure reached from the missing tests to the compliance certifications and invoices, a connection someone in testing, staffing or billing could recognize.

The Justice Department announced the civil False Claims Act settlement on January 7, 2013. Worldwide, operating in Maine at the time, supplied linguists to the Defense Department for overseas combat zones and other military venues. Two former employees brought whistleblower allegations that became part of the government’s investigation.

What the Linguist Contracts Required

Worldwide’s contracts made tested proficiency part of the service the government bought. Each linguist had to take specified proficiency tests and achieve the required scores to be acceptable for work under the delivery orders. That puts this case alongside defense contract qualification claims: the staffing promise has to match the person supplied and the service billed.

The 1999 contract required the government to obtain its linguist services exclusively from Worldwide. It could not buy those services from another supplier, making the promised proficiency checks all the more important. The 2003 contract offered a lower price for certain services than the earlier contract, with the aim of reducing the government’s acquisition costs. Both contracts kept the testing requirements. A lower price came with the same obligation to establish that the linguists could do the work.

Those requirements give a testing employee’s work a direct connection to government money. The test and score establish the qualification promised for a particular linguist, while the delivery order and invoice connect that person to the purchased service. We look at whether the test files support the compliance promise sent with the bill.

The Tests Were Missing, the Certifications Continued

The government alleged that Worldwide knowingly supplied untested linguists under both contracts through March 2004. According to the settlement announcement, the company failed to test the linguists, failed to tell any government employee it was skipping the tests, and continued sending untested personnel to overseas combat areas and other military venues. It also kept invoicing the government and certifying compliance with the testing requirements.

The government’s account went further than a missing score in a file. It said Worldwide did not know whether the untested linguists were adequate for their assigned tasks. Without testing in the subject language or English, the government could be paying for a service its military personnel could not use.

We see the absurdity in the alleged certification: the company told the government it had complied with the very check it had skipped. For work in war zones. On the government’s account, the invoice carried a promise that the company’s own work did not support.

When the Linguist Services Never Happened

The settlement also covered allegations of billing for work never performed. The government alleged that Worldwide charged for linguist services not provided at all, claimed more service days than the billing period contained, and invoiced additional man-days that no linguist had worked.

Another allegation concerned a linguist who was incapacitated and unable to provide services. The government said Worldwide invoiced for that person’s services anyway. A deployment or availability record could matter here because it connects a billed name to whether that person could actually perform the work during the charged period.

The government also alleged that Worldwide invoiced twice for one linguist’s services under two separate delivery orders, although the work happened only once. The comparison crosses orders: the same worker and the same performance appear behind separate charges. For a billing insider, that is a reason to look beyond the total on an individual invoice and explain how the charges relate to the work.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Fraud?

For allegations like these, the useful evidence connects the required test, the worker supplied, the services performed and the bill sent to the government. We examine those connections with the insider who knows them. A testing employee may know whether the required examination happened, while a deployment manager may know when a linguist was available and a billing employee may know which delivery orders carried the charges.

A roster can place a person on an assignment. A test record addresses the promised qualification. Service records address the days worked, and invoices show the days and orders charged. Those records answer different questions, which is why the evidence behind a defense contractor fraud claim can extend beyond the document requesting payment. We also want to understand who knew the testing or service records did not support the representation and what happened to the bill afterward.

Why the View Inside the Contractor Matters

Worldwide allegedly kept the missing tests out of the government’s view. Transparency International Defence and Security’s 2022 report, Hidden Costs: US Private Military and Security Companies and the Risks of Corruption and Conflict, describes a wider oversight problem:

The Worldwide allegations show why the view inside the contractor matters to payment. The company allegedly continued to certify compliance while withholding the fact that it was not testing linguists. Someone who knew how testing actually worked could connect the assurance given to the government to the missing step inside the business.

Another Linguist Case, a Different Part of the Bill

Calnet’s linguist-contract settlement concerned allegedly overstated provisional indirect rates on translation and linguist contracts. Those rates put overhead costs into the government’s reimbursement. The work included Guantanamo Bay and other facilities, with Calnet serving as a subcontractor on one contract and the prime contractor on two.

The allegations against Worldwide concerned testing, services and days charged, while those against Calnet concerned the indirect costs charged through the rates. A staffing employee and a cost accountant may see different parts of the same kind of business. We focus on the representation each can explain and the payment it affected.

The Former Employees and the Civil Settlement

The two former Worldwide employees filed qui tam cases on behalf of the United States, and the announcement allocated them a combined share of the settlement. The company and its president agreed to the civil resolution together.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania handled the civil investigation and settlement negotiations. The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Contract Audit Agency and Naval Criminal Investigative Service also participated in the investigation.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. If you know why a testing certification or a billed day does not match the work, our whistleblower experts will work with you to build a defense contractor whistleblower case around what you know.

You Know Who Was Tested and Who Worked

If you handled linguist testing, deployment or invoices and saw the government billed for something the company had not delivered, speak with our whistleblower experts about the services behind the bill. We work beside you to build the case and bring in defense contractor fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand staffing qualifications and service billing. You bring the view inside the business; we bring the expertise and commitment to pursue it with you.