Bradken Inc. Pays $10.8 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Involving Substandard Naval Parts
Seattle Whistleblower Attorneys report that Bradken Inc. (Bradken) has paid $10,896,924 to resolve allegations that Bradken produced and sold substandard steel components for installation on U.S. Navy vessels. The United States alleged that a Bradken employee knowingly falsified test results to conceal the fact that the components did not meet the Navy’s specifications.
Bradken, which operates a foundry in Tacoma, Washington, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri, operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of Bradken Ltd. of Newcastle, Australia. Since the 1980s, Bradken has produced steel parts used by other contractors to build vessels for the United States Navy. The Navy’s contracts expressly required parts made of specified grades of high yield steel.
The settlement announced today resolves allegations that some of the steel Bradken produced did not conform to the Navy’s specifications. The United States alleged that a former Bradken metallurgist altered the results of tests designed to ensure that the parts met the specifications for high yield steel, and Bradken’s internal controls were inadequate to identify the hundreds of falsified test results. The United States further contended that Bradken invoiced shipbuilders for the steel parts as if they were made to the demanding military specification when they were not, causing the shipbuilders to invoice the Navy for defective parts.
In addition to the civil settlement, U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran for the Western District of Washington announced that the United States has filed a criminal charge against Bradken for committing the crime of major fraud against the United States. The United States and Bradken have also entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in which Bradken admitted the government’s allegations and agreed to take certain remedial actions. If Bradken complies with all of the DPA’s requirements, the government will dismiss the criminal charge after three years.
Except to the extent admitted as part of the DPA, the claims resolved by the civil settlement are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability in the civil case.
Source: Dept. of Justice
Bradken, which operates a foundry in Tacoma, Washington, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri, operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of Bradken Ltd. of Newcastle, Australia. Since the 1980s, Bradken has produced steel parts used by other contractors to build vessels for the United States Navy. The Navy’s contracts expressly required parts made of specified grades of high yield steel.
The settlement announced today resolves allegations that some of the steel Bradken produced did not conform to the Navy’s specifications. The United States alleged that a former Bradken metallurgist altered the results of tests designed to ensure that the parts met the specifications for high yield steel, and Bradken’s internal controls were inadequate to identify the hundreds of falsified test results. The United States further contended that Bradken invoiced shipbuilders for the steel parts as if they were made to the demanding military specification when they were not, causing the shipbuilders to invoice the Navy for defective parts.
In addition to the civil settlement, U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran for the Western District of Washington announced that the United States has filed a criminal charge against Bradken for committing the crime of major fraud against the United States. The United States and Bradken have also entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in which Bradken admitted the government’s allegations and agreed to take certain remedial actions. If Bradken complies with all of the DPA’s requirements, the government will dismiss the criminal charge after three years.
Except to the extent admitted as part of the DPA, the claims resolved by the civil settlement are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability in the civil case.
Source: Dept. of Justice