Procurement Fraud Defense &
False Claims Act Defense
Former DOJ Prosecutors. Nationwide Trial-Ready Defense for Government Contractors, Executives, and Individuals Facing Federal Procurement Fraud, False Claims Act, Kickback, and Bid Rigging Investigations and Charges.
Based in Washington, D.C., Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends government contractors, subcontractors, grant recipients, corporate executives, and individuals in federal procurement fraud, False Claims Act, kickback, bid rigging, and grant fraud investigations and cases nationwide.
The firm’s procurement fraud defense practice is built on over 25 years of combined experience at the nation’s preeminent fraud enforcement units: DOJ’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA).
Drew Bradylyons: Chief of Financial Crimes at the Nation’s Leading Procurement Fraud District
Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit. EDVA is the nation’s leading federal district for procurement fraud enforcement. The district is home to the Pentagon, the CIA, the Defense Department, and hundreds of federal agencies and government contractors. EDVA has a long and well-documented track record of prosecuting the most significant procurement fraud, government contract fraud, and public corruption cases in the country.
As Chief of Financial Crimes at EDVA, Drew built and supervised procurement fraud and government contract fraud cases at the highest level.
Federal grant theft. Drew supervised the investigation and resolution of a case involving two executives of a government contractor who stole over $12 million in federal grants.
Kickback conspiracy. Drew led and supervised the investigation and resolution of a case involving executives at a federal contractor and subcontractors who conspired to execute a kickback scheme involving tens of millions of dollars in government contracts.
Procurement bribery. Drew supervised the investigation of government contractors who paid bribes to a federal employee in exchange for favorable treatment in the awarding of contracts.
Bid rigging. Drew was a member of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force and coordinated closely with DOJ’s Antitrust Division and federal law enforcement to investigate significant bid rigging cases in the capital region.
Federal program bribery. Drew led multiple investigations into individuals suspected of committing federal program bribery.
Scott Armstrong: 16 Federal Jury Trials in Complex, Multi-Million-Dollar Fraud Cases
Scott Armstrong served for nearly a decade at DOJ’s Fraud Section, including as an Assistant Chief. Scott’s trial experience complements Drew’s deep subject-matter expertise in procurement fraud. Scott has tried 16 complex federal jury trials in federal courts across the country. These multi-week trials involved high-profile, multi-million-dollar white-collar matters spanning the full range of complex fraud: Ponzi schemes laundering hundreds of millions of dollars through financial institutions, leading market manipulation cases against senior traders at financial institutions, commodities fraud, securities fraud, cryptocurrency fraud, and investment fraud.
Drew’s firsthand knowledge of how procurement fraud cases are built and pursued at the nation’s most active district, combined with Scott’s proven ability to try the most complex fraud cases to verdict, gives the firm an unmatched combination of subject-matter depth and courtroom firepower.
The firm now uses that experience to defend individuals and entities at every stage of a procurement fraud case: from the first subpoena or Civil Investigative Demand, through federal indictment, and at trial.
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends individuals in the federal districts where procurement fraud is most aggressively investigated and prosecuted, including the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), the District of Columbia (DDC), the Southern District of New York (SDNY), the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), the District of Maryland, the Northern District of Illinois (NDIL), the Southern District of Florida (SDFL), and federal courts across the country.
Procurement Fraud Is a Top Federal Enforcement Priority
Federal procurement fraud enforcement is at a historic high. In fiscal year 2025, DOJ recovered over $6.8 billion under the False Claims Act, the highest single-year total in the statute’s history. Whistleblower filings hit a record 1,297 new suits. DOJ’s Fraud Section charged over 250 individuals and tried two dozen cases across 17 federal districts. The Fraud Section’s Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit expanded its staffing from 35 to 55 prosecutors, reflecting a deliberate reallocation of resources toward procurement and government program fraud. In January 2026, the White House announced the creation of a new Division for National Fraud Enforcement within DOJ to coordinate criminal and civil fraud cases targeting federal programs and procurement. DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force now includes 25 U.S. Attorney’s Offices and 12 federal law enforcement partners dedicated to investigating bid rigging, price fixing, and procurement collusion at every level of government.
Government contractors, subcontractors, and executives face serious criminal and civil exposure. The enforcement apparatus is larger, better resourced, and more data-driven than at any point in history. Individuals under investigation or facing charges need defense counsel who have been on the other side of these cases and understand how they are built from the inside.
Trial-Ready Procurement Fraud Defense
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends every procurement fraud and False Claims Act case from the start as if it will go to trial. That philosophy is grounded in trial experience forged in deeply contested cases in federal courts around the country.
Preparation begins at engagement. From the investigation stage forward, the firm dives into the complex factual record of any procurement fraud or False Claims Act case. It reviews contract files, billing records, cost and pricing data, and government audit reports. It retains forensic accountants and industry experts where appropriate. It identifies and prepares witnesses. All of this work builds toward a presentation to a jury if the case cannot be resolved on favorable terms.
Trial readiness directly affects outcomes at every stage. Procurement fraud cases are factually and technically complex. They involve government contracts, subcontracts, grant agreements, cost accounting standards, pricing regulations, and federal acquisition rules that are dense, technical, and difficult to present clearly to a jury. These cases are won or lost based on how well an advocate can translate complex regulatory and financial evidence into a clear and compelling narrative. That requires trial experience. The firm has it.
Scott Armstrong has tried 16 federal jury trials across the country, including multi-week cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud. Drew Bradylyons built and supervised the most complex procurement fraud and government contract fraud cases in EDVA, the nation’s leading district for these cases. That firsthand knowledge of how federal prosecutors build procurement fraud cases from the ground up allows the firm to identify weaknesses in the government’s case and exploit them at every stage.
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC relishes the opportunity to go to trial to defend its clients. The firm’s willingness to try a case provides significant leverage in negotiations with federal prosecutors and in civil False Claims Act proceedings.
Our Approach to Procurement Fraud and False Claims Act Defense
The firm’s procurement fraud defense strategy is built on trial experience, command of complex government contracting data, and deep knowledge of the federal acquisition and grant-funding framework. Drew Bradylyons’s direct experience building procurement fraud cases as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes Unit, combined with Scott Armstrong’s 16 federal jury trials, shapes every aspect of the firm’s defense practice.
Government Contract and Grant Record Review
Federal procurement fraud cases are built on contract files, invoices, cost and pricing data, grant applications, performance reports, and compliance certifications. Federal prosecutors and agency inspectors general reconstruct the paper trail to establish false claims, inflated costs, and misrepresentations. The firm conducts detailed analysis of government contract records and grant documentation to challenge the government’s fraud theories and identify weaknesses in its case. The firm’s attorneys have reviewed this evidence for years, both as federal prosecutors building cases and as defense counsel challenging them.
Cost Data, Billing, and Pricing Defense
Many procurement fraud prosecutions hinge on allegations of defective pricing, inflated cost proposals, false certifications under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), double billing, or the submission of false invoices. The government relies on audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and forensic accountants to quantify alleged overbilling and false claims. The firm retains independent forensic accountants and government contracting experts to challenge the government’s cost analysis, audit methodology, and loss calculations at every stage.
Federal Acquisition Regulation and Compliance
Procurement fraud cases frequently turn on the interpretation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), agency-specific supplements, Cost Accounting Standards, and grant conditions. These regulatory frameworks are dense and often subject to reasonable interpretation. The firm challenges the government’s interpretation of regulatory requirements and exploits ambiguity where the regulations do not clearly prohibit the client’s conduct. Regulatory ambiguity is a powerful defense tool in procurement fraud cases. The firm leverages it aggressively.
Loss Calculations and Sentencing Exposure
Federal sentencing in procurement fraud cases is driven by loss calculations under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The government’s loss methodology can dramatically inflate a defendant’s sentencing exposure. In procurement fraud cases, loss disputes often involve disagreements over the proper baseline for calculating overcharges, whether the government received value for the goods or services provided, and the scope of the allegedly fraudulent conduct. The firm’s attorneys have extensive experience with the sentencing framework in complex fraud cases and use that experience to protect clients from inflated loss figures.
Who We Defend in Procurement Fraud and False Claims Act Cases
Procurement fraud and False Claims Act investigations target a wide range of individuals and entities: from the executives who lead government contracting companies, to the subcontractors, project managers, and employees who participate in the performance and billing of government contracts and grants. Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends these individuals and entities in federal investigations, at trial, and in civil and administrative proceedings.
Defense of Government Contractor Executives
The firm defends the executives, officers, and owners of government contracting companies in federal procurement fraud, False Claims Act, and kickback investigations and prosecutions. Contractor executives are high-priority targets for DOJ, agency inspectors general, and the Procurement Collusion Strike Force. Federal prosecutors target executives who allegedly directed the submission of false claims, approved inflated cost proposals, concealed defective products, authorized kickback payments, or certified compliance with contract requirements they knew were not satisfied. Drew Bradylyons supervised the investigation and resolution of cases involving government contractor executives responsible for stealing over $12 million in federal grants and executing kickback schemes involving tens of millions of dollars in government contracts. The firm brings that direct experience to every defense engagement.
Defense of Subcontractors
The firm defends subcontractors in federal procurement fraud investigations and prosecutions. Subcontractors face criminal and civil exposure when the government alleges that they participated in kickback arrangements with prime contractors, submitted false invoices for work not performed, inflated labor or material costs, or conspired with prime contractors to defraud the government. The firm challenges the government’s evidence of the subcontractor’s knowledge and intent and works to sever the subcontractor’s alleged involvement from the broader conspiracy.
Defense of Grant Recipients
The firm defends individuals and organizations that receive federal grants and are investigated for alleged misuse of grant funds, false certifications in grant applications, and submission of false progress or performance reports. Federal grant fraud is investigated by agency inspectors general and prosecuted under the False Claims Act, wire fraud, and federal program fraud statutes. The firm defends grant recipients in both criminal and civil proceedings.
Defense of Individuals in Bid Rigging Investigations
The firm defends individuals investigated or charged with bid rigging, price fixing, and market allocation in government procurement. Bid rigging is a per se violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. DOJ’s Antitrust Division, through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, has opened over 145 criminal investigations since 2019 and prosecuted more than 85 companies and individuals. Drew Bradylyons was a member of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force and coordinated closely with the Antitrust Division on bid rigging investigations in the capital region. The firm uses that direct experience to defend individuals facing these charges.
Defense of Federal Employees and Officials
The firm defends federal employees and government officials investigated for bribery, conflicts of interest, and corruption in the procurement process. Federal employees face criminal charges when the government alleges that they accepted bribes or gratuities in exchange for steering contracts, disclosed nonpublic procurement information, or provided favorable treatment to particular contractors. Drew Bradylyons supervised investigations of government contractors who paid bribes to a federal employee in exchange for favorable treatment in contract awards and led multiple investigations into individuals suspected of committing federal program bribery (18 U.S.C. § 666). The firm defends individuals on both sides of these allegations.
Procurement Fraud Schemes We Defend
The firm’s procurement fraud defense practice spans the full range of fraud and corruption schemes that DOJ, agency inspectors general, and the Procurement Collusion Strike Force investigate and charge. The firm defends individuals in investigations and prosecutions involving the following areas:
False Claims and Fraudulent Billing
The firm defends government contractors, subcontractors, and executives in cases involving allegations of submitting false claims for payment under government contracts and grants. False claims cases are the backbone of federal procurement fraud enforcement. The government alleges that defendants submitted invoices for work not performed, billed for materials not delivered, inflated labor hours or material costs, or submitted claims that did not comply with contract specifications. The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) provides for treble damages and per-claim penalties. Criminal false claims carry penalties of up to five years under 18 U.S.C. § 287. The firm defends individuals in both civil FCA actions and criminal false claims prosecutions.
Kickback Schemes
The firm defends individuals in cases involving allegations of kickbacks between prime contractors and subcontractors on government contracts. The Anti-Kickback Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 8702–8707) prohibits the payment or acceptance of kickbacks in connection with government contracts and subcontracts. Criminal violations carry penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals. Drew Bradylyons led and supervised the investigation and resolution of a case involving executives at a federal contractor and subcontractors who conspired to execute a kickback scheme involving tens of millions of dollars in government contracts. The firm brings that direct experience to kickback defense.
Bid Rigging and Procurement Collusion
The firm defends individuals in cases involving allegations of bid rigging, price fixing, and market allocation in government procurement. Bid rigging occurs when competitors agree in advance who will submit the winning bid on a government contract. These schemes are investigated by DOJ’s Antitrust Division through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force and are prosecuted as felonies under the Sherman Act. Individuals face up to 10 years’ imprisonment per count. The government also frequently brings parallel wire fraud and conspiracy charges that carry additional penalties. Drew Bradylyons coordinated closely with the Antitrust Division and federal law enforcement to investigate significant bid rigging cases in the capital region.
Defective Pricing and Cost Misrepresentation
The firm defends contractors in cases involving allegations of defective pricing under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA). TINA requires contractors to submit accurate, complete, and current cost or pricing data when negotiating government contracts above certain thresholds. The government pursues civil FCA claims and criminal fraud charges when it alleges that a contractor submitted false or misleading cost data to inflate the contract price. In fiscal year 2025, DOJ recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in defective pricing cases against major defense contractors, including the second-largest procurement fraud recovery in FCA history. The firm challenges the government’s pricing analysis and defends contractors against these high-exposure claims.
Grant Fraud
The firm defends individuals and organizations in cases involving allegations of fraud in connection with federal grants, cooperative agreements, and other federal funding awards. Grant fraud cases involve allegations of misrepresenting qualifications in grant applications, diverting grant funds to unauthorized purposes, submitting false progress or performance reports, and failing to comply with grant conditions. Drew Bradylyons supervised the investigation and resolution of a case involving two executives of a government contractor who stole over $12 million in federal grants. The firm defends grant recipients in criminal prosecutions and civil FCA actions arising from these allegations.
Bribery and Public Corruption in Procurement
The firm defends individuals in cases involving allegations of bribery and corruption in the government procurement process. These cases involve allegations that contractors paid bribes or provided things of value to government officials in exchange for contract awards, inside information, or favorable treatment. Federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666 carries penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Bribery of a public official under 18 U.S.C. § 201 carries penalties of up to 15 years’ imprisonment. Drew Bradylyons supervised investigations of government contractors who paid bribes to a federal employee in exchange for favorable treatment in the awarding of contracts and led multiple investigations into individuals suspected of committing federal program bribery.
Product Substitution and Counterfeit Parts
The firm defends contractors and suppliers in cases involving allegations of product substitution, counterfeit parts, and failure to meet contract specifications. These cases are common in defense procurement and involve allegations that the contractor delivered goods that did not conform to the technical specifications required by the contract, substituted inferior materials, falsified testing or inspection reports, or supplied counterfeit components. Product substitution cases carry significant criminal exposure under wire fraud and false claims statutes, as well as civil FCA liability and potential debarment.
Small Business Set-Aside Fraud
The firm defends individuals in cases involving allegations of fraud in small business contracting programs, including Small Business Administration (SBA) set-aside programs, 8(a) Business Development programs, HUBZone programs, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) programs. These cases involve allegations that contractors misrepresented their eligibility for set-aside contracts, used pass-through arrangements to allow ineligible companies to receive set-aside awards, or operated shell companies to fraudulently obtain contracts reserved for qualifying small businesses.
Cybersecurity Compliance Fraud
The firm defends government contractors in cases involving allegations of false certifications regarding cybersecurity compliance. DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative uses the False Claims Act to pursue contractors that knowingly misrepresent their compliance with cybersecurity standards required by government contracts. In fiscal year 2025, DOJ recovered over $52 million in cybersecurity fraud settlements, with recoveries tripling in each of the past two years. These cases involve allegations that contractors falsely certified compliance with NIST cybersecurity frameworks, CMMC requirements, or contract-specific security controls while failing to implement required safeguards.
Subpoena Response & Investigation Defense
A procurement fraud case does not begin at indictment. It begins months or years earlier, when an agency inspector general opens an investigation, a whistleblower files a qui tam complaint under seal, or a federal grand jury starts issuing subpoenas. Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends government contractors, executives, and individuals at this critical investigation stage: before charges are filed and before the government’s case is fully developed.
Retaining experienced defense counsel at the investigation stage is one of the most consequential decisions an individual can make in a procurement fraud case. Early representation allows the firm to shape the trajectory of the investigation, protect the client’s rights, and position the case for the strongest possible outcome.
Armstrong & Bradylyons draws on its substantial former DOJ experience to guide its clients through complex procurement fraud investigations. Scott Armstrong served as an Assistant Chief at DOJ’s Fraud Section and has tried 16 federal jury trials. Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit, where he built and supervised the most significant procurement fraud cases in the nation’s leading district for government contract fraud. Collectively, the firm’s attorneys have tried 25 federal jury trials.
Grand Jury Subpoena Defense
The firm defends individuals who receive grand jury subpoenas in procurement fraud, kickback, bid rigging, and government contract fraud investigations. A federal grand jury subpoena is often the first indication that an individual is a subject or target of a criminal procurement fraud investigation. Receiving a grand jury subpoena requires an immediate and strategic response.
The firm advises clients on the scope of the subpoena, asserts applicable privileges and objections, negotiates the terms of production or testimony with federal prosecutors, and seeks to quash or limit the subpoena where appropriate. The firm also advises clients on their Fifth Amendment rights and the implications of testifying before a grand jury, including the critical distinction between witness, subject, and target status.
Civil Investigative Demand (CID) Defense
The firm defends individuals and companies that receive Civil Investigative Demands issued by DOJ in connection with False Claims Act investigations. A CID compels the production of documents, answers to interrogatories, or oral testimony. CIDs are frequently issued during the sealed phase of qui tam whistleblower actions, before the government decides whether to intervene. The firm responds to CIDs strategically, managing the scope of production and protecting the client’s interests while the investigation is still in its early stages.
Qui Tam and Whistleblower Defense
The firm defends individuals and companies that are the targets of qui tam whistleblower lawsuits under the False Claims Act. Qui tam suits are filed under seal and remain confidential while the government investigates and decides whether to intervene. In fiscal year 2025, whistleblowers filed a record 1,297 new qui tam suits. The firm represents defendants during the sealed phase, through the government’s intervention decision, in settlement negotiations, and at trial.
Inspector General Investigation Defense
The firm defends individuals and companies under investigation by federal agency inspectors general, including the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, GSA Office of Inspector General, NASA OIG, Department of Energy OIG, and other agency OIG offices. Agency OIG investigations involve document demands, employee interviews, forensic audits, and site inspections. These investigations frequently lead to criminal referrals to DOJ or U.S. Attorney’s Offices. The firm engages directly with OIG investigators and the prosecutors supervising the inquiry to protect its clients’ interests from the outset.
Parallel Proceedings
Procurement fraud investigations frequently generate parallel criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings arising from the same set of facts. A single course of conduct may produce a criminal investigation by a U.S. Attorney’s Office or DOJ’s Fraud Section; a civil False Claims Act action; a qui tam whistleblower suit; an agency OIG investigation; a suspension or debarment proceeding; a DCAA audit; and a contract termination for default. The firm coordinates the defense across all of these proceedings, ensuring that actions taken in one forum do not compromise the client’s position in another. Drew Bradylyons navigated these exact parallel proceeding issues for years as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes Unit.
Suspension and Debarment Defense
The firm defends government contractors facing suspension or debarment proceedings. Suspension and debarment are administrative actions that bar a contractor from receiving new government contracts. These proceedings can be initiated by any federal agency and are frequently triggered by a criminal indictment, a civil FCA complaint, or an adverse audit finding. Debarment can be devastating to a government contractor’s business. The firm works to prevent debarment through early engagement with the debarring official, presentation of mitigating evidence, and negotiation of administrative agreements that allow the contractor to continue operating while the underlying investigation or case is resolved.
Federal Agencies That Investigate Procurement Fraud
Procurement fraud investigations are conducted by multiple federal agencies working in coordination. The firm defends individuals in procurement fraud investigations brought by the following agencies.
DOJ’s Fraud Section
DOJ’s Criminal Division, primarily through the Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit (formerly the Market Integrity and Major Fraud Unit), investigates and prosecutes complex procurement fraud, government contract fraud, and federal program fraud cases. The MGC Unit expanded its staffing from 35 to 55 prosecutors in 2025, reflecting DOJ’s deliberate reallocation of resources toward procurement fraud enforcement. As a former Assistant Chief at DOJ’s Fraud Section, Scott Armstrong brings direct knowledge of how DOJ procurement fraud investigations and prosecutions are built, staffed, and pursued.
United States Attorney’s Offices (USAOs)
Procurement fraud cases are prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys in federal judicial districts across the country. The most active district for procurement fraud prosecutions is the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), which is home to the Pentagon, the CIA, and hundreds of government contractors and federal agencies. EDVA has a long and well-documented history of prosecuting the most significant procurement fraud cases in the country. Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit, one of the most active white-collar prosecution offices in the country.
DOJ’s Antitrust Division and the Procurement Collusion Strike Force
DOJ’s Antitrust Division leads the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, an interagency partnership of prosecutors from 25 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the FBI, and 12 federal inspectors general dedicated to investigating and prosecuting bid rigging, price fixing, and procurement collusion. The Strike Force has opened over 145 criminal investigations since 2019. Drew Bradylyons was a member of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force and worked directly with the Antitrust Division on bid rigging investigations.
Agency Inspectors General
Federal agency inspectors general are the front line of procurement fraud detection. The Department of Defense OIG, GSA OIG, NASA OIG, Department of Energy OIG, Department of Homeland Security OIG, and other agency OIG offices conduct audits, investigations, and reviews of government contracts and grants. OIG investigations frequently lead to criminal referrals to DOJ and U.S. Attorney’s Offices. The firm defends individuals in OIG investigations and the criminal and civil proceedings that follow.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
The FBI investigates procurement fraud as a component of its financial crimes mission. FBI agents are assigned to procurement fraud task forces and work closely with DOJ prosecutors, agency inspectors general, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service on complex government contract fraud cases.
Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS)
DCIS is the criminal investigative arm of the Department of Defense OIG. DCIS investigates fraud, bribery, and corruption involving Department of Defense contracts, operations, and personnel. DCIS agents specialize in defense procurement fraud and work closely with federal prosecutors in EDVA and other districts with significant defense contracting activity.
Division for National Fraud Enforcement
Announced in January 2026, this new DOJ division is expected to coordinate criminal and civil fraud enforcement targeting federal programs, procurement, and government spending. The division signals sustained and increasing enforcement attention on procurement fraud as a core DOJ priority.
Federal Procurement Fraud Charges
The firm defends individuals against the full range of federal charges brought in procurement fraud cases. These cases typically involve one or more of the following federal criminal statutes.
False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733
The False Claims Act is the government’s primary civil enforcement tool for procurement fraud. The FCA imposes liability on any person who knowingly submits a false claim for payment to the government or makes a false record or statement material to a false claim. Civil FCA penalties include treble damages and per-claim penalties. The FCA’s qui tam provisions allow private whistleblowers to file suit on behalf of the government and receive a share of any recovery. In fiscal year 2025, the government recovered over $6.8 billion under the FCA.
Criminal False Claims: 18 U.S.C. § 287
Criminal false claims charges target individuals who knowingly make or present false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims to the United States government. Criminal false claims carry penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment. Federal prosecutors bring criminal false claims charges in procurement fraud cases involving intentional overbilling, fraudulent invoicing, and false certifications on government contracts.
Major Government Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1031
The major fraud statute targets fraud schemes against the United States involving contracts or procurement valued at $1 million or more. Convictions carry penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of up to $1 million for individuals. Federal prosecutors use this statute in high-value procurement fraud cases involving major government contracts.
Anti-Kickback Act: 41 U.S.C. §§ 8702–8707
The Anti-Kickback Act prohibits the payment or acceptance of kickbacks in connection with government contracts and subcontracts. Kickbacks include any money, fee, commission, gift, gratuity, or thing of value provided to a prime contractor, subcontractor, or their employee for the purpose of improperly obtaining or rewarding favorable treatment. Criminal violations carry penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Bid Rigging: 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act)
Bid rigging is prosecuted as a felony under the Sherman Act. The statute prohibits agreements between competitors to rig bids, fix prices, or allocate markets. Bid rigging in government procurement is a per se violation of the antitrust laws. Individuals face penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of up to $1 million per count. The government also pursues treble damages under the Clayton Act in parallel civil actions.
Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Wire fraud is frequently charged alongside procurement fraud counts. The statute targets schemes to defraud that use interstate wire communications, including emails, electronic invoicing, and online submissions to government contracting systems. Convictions carry penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Federal prosecutors use wire fraud as a broadly applicable charge in procurement fraud cases because virtually all government contract activity involves electronic communications.
Federal Program Bribery: 18 U.S.C. § 666
Federal program bribery targets the bribery of agents of organizations receiving more than $10,000 in federal funds. This statute is frequently charged in procurement fraud cases involving corruption and bribery in the contract award process. Convictions carry penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Bribery of Public Officials: 18 U.S.C. § 201
Bribery of a public official targets individuals who offer, promise, or give anything of value to a public official with intent to influence an official act. In procurement fraud cases, this statute applies when contractors bribe federal employees to steer contracts or provide inside information. Convictions carry penalties of up to 15 years’ imprisonment.
Additional Federal Charges
DOJ commonly brings additional federal charges alongside the primary procurement fraud counts. The firm defends individuals against these related charges in federal prosecutions nationwide. These charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371), conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), money laundering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957), false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512), and theft of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641). Each additional charge increases the sentencing exposure a defendant faces under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
What Is Federal Procurement Fraud?
Federal procurement fraud is any scheme to defraud the United States government in connection with the award, performance, or billing of a government contract, subcontract, or grant. Common forms of procurement fraud include submitting false claims for payment, inflating costs or labor hours, delivering defective or nonconforming products, paying or accepting kickbacks, rigging bids, and bribing government officials to influence contract awards.
Procurement fraud is investigated by DOJ’s Fraud Section, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, DOJ’s Antitrust Division, the FBI, agency inspectors general, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. It is prosecuted as both a criminal offense and a civil violation under the False Claims Act.
What Is the False Claims Act and How Does It Apply to Government Contractors?
The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) is the government’s most powerful civil enforcement tool for combating fraud against federal programs and procurement. The FCA imposes liability on any person who knowingly submits a false claim for payment to the government, makes a false record or statement material to a false claim, or conspires to violate the FCA.
FCA liability does not require proof of specific intent to defraud. The statute’s knowledge standard is satisfied by actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Penalties include treble damages and per-claim civil penalties. In fiscal year 2025, FCA recoveries exceeded $6.8 billion. Government contractors face FCA exposure for false billing, defective pricing, product substitution, false certifications, and cybersecurity compliance misrepresentations.
What Is a Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuit?
A qui tam lawsuit is a civil action filed by a private individual, known as a relator or whistleblower, on behalf of the United States government under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3730). The relator is typically a current or former employee, competitor, or other insider who has knowledge of the alleged fraud.
Qui tam suits are filed under seal and remain confidential for at least 60 days while the government investigates. In practice, the sealed period often lasts years. DOJ then decides whether to intervene and take over the case. If the government intervenes, the relator receives 15 to 25 percent of any recovery. If the government declines to intervene, the relator may proceed independently and receives 25 to 30 percent. In fiscal year 2025, whistleblowers filed a record 1,297 new qui tam suits. An experienced defense attorney can shape the outcome of the case during the critical sealed phase, before DOJ decides whether to intervene.
What Is the Difference Between Criminal and Civil Procurement Fraud?
Criminal procurement fraud is prosecuted by DOJ and U.S. Attorney’s Offices under federal criminal statutes such as wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), criminal false claims (18 U.S.C. § 287), and major government fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1031). Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and carry imprisonment, fines, and restitution.
Civil procurement fraud is pursued under the False Claims Act by DOJ or by qui tam whistleblowers. Civil cases require proof by a preponderance of the evidence and result in treble damages and per-claim penalties. The same conduct can give rise to both criminal and civil proceedings. Parallel criminal and civil proceedings are common in procurement fraud cases and require coordinated defense strategies.
What Is the Procurement Collusion Strike Force?
The Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) is an interagency partnership led by DOJ’s Antitrust Division that investigates and prosecutes bid rigging, price fixing, and procurement collusion in government contracting at the federal, state, and local levels. The PCSF includes prosecutors from the Antitrust Division, 25 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the FBI, and 12 federal inspectors general.
Since its creation in 2019, the Strike Force has opened over 145 criminal investigations and prosecuted more than 85 companies and individuals. The PCSF trains procurement officials to detect collusion and uses data analytics to identify suspicious bidding patterns. Drew Bradylyons was a member of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force and coordinated closely with the Antitrust Division to investigate significant bid rigging cases. The firm brings that direct insider experience to bid rigging defense.
Why Is EDVA the Leading Federal District for Procurement Fraud Cases?
The Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) is the nation’s leading federal district for procurement fraud enforcement. EDVA is home to the Pentagon, the CIA, numerous defense and intelligence agencies, and hundreds of government contractors. This concentration of federal agencies and contractor headquarters produces a heavy volume of procurement fraud investigations and prosecutions.
EDVA’s federal court is also known as the “rocket docket” for its fast-moving case schedule, which forces both sides to litigate at an accelerated pace. The combination of a high volume of procurement fraud cases and one of the fastest federal courts in the country makes EDVA a uniquely demanding venue. Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit, where he built and supervised the most significant procurement fraud and government contract fraud cases in the district.
What Defenses Are Available in a Federal Procurement Fraud Case?
The available defenses depend on the specific allegations. Common defenses in procurement fraud and False Claims Act cases include the following:
Lack of knowledge or intent. The government must prove that the defendant knowingly submitted a false claim or engaged in fraud. Billing errors, negligent mistakes, and reasonable disagreements over contract interpretation are not fraud.
Government knowledge. If the government knew about the allegedly false information and paid the claim anyway, the defendant may argue that the claim was not false or that the government was not deceived.
Materiality. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Services v. Escobar, the false statement must be material to the government’s payment decision. The firm challenges materiality aggressively.
Regulatory ambiguity. Complex government contracting regulations are often subject to reasonable interpretation. The firm exploits regulatory ambiguity to defend conduct that falls within a reasonable reading of the applicable rules.
Good faith reliance. Reliance on legal counsel, compliance programs, or government guidance can negate fraudulent intent.
What Is Suspension and Debarment?
Suspension and debarment are administrative actions that bar a contractor from receiving new government contracts and participating in government programs. Suspension is a temporary exclusion pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. Debarment is a longer-term exclusion, typically lasting three years, based on a finding that the contractor engaged in fraud, bribery, or other serious misconduct.
Suspension and debarment can be initiated by any federal agency and are governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.4. For a government contractor, debarment can be devastating. The firm works to prevent debarment through early engagement with the debarring official, administrative agreements, and remedial measures that demonstrate the contractor has addressed the underlying misconduct.
What Is the Anti-Kickback Act?
The Anti-Kickback Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 8702–8707) prohibits the offering, soliciting, paying, or accepting of kickbacks in connection with government contracts and subcontracts. A kickback is any money, fee, commission, gift, gratuity, or thing of value provided to obtain or reward favorable treatment in the awarding or performance of a government contract.
Criminal violations carry penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals. Kickback violations also create civil liability under the False Claims Act and can trigger suspension or debarment proceedings. Drew Bradylyons led and supervised the investigation and resolution of a kickback scheme involving tens of millions of dollars in government contracts. The firm defends individuals against kickback allegations at every stage.
What Experience Do the Firm’s Attorneys Have in Procurement Fraud Cases?
Scott Armstrong served for nearly a decade at DOJ’s Fraud Section, including as an Assistant Chief. He has tried 16 federal jury trials in federal courts across the country, including multi-week trials involving multi-million-dollar fraud cases. Scott’s trial experience spans the full range of complex white-collar fraud, and he brings that depth of courtroom experience to every procurement fraud defense engagement.
Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit, the nation’s leading district for procurement fraud enforcement. At EDVA, Drew built and supervised the most significant procurement fraud cases in the district: investigating contractor executives who stole federal grant funds, leading cases involving tens of millions of dollars in kickback schemes, supervising bribery investigations, and serving as a member of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force. Collectively, the firm’s attorneys have tried 25 federal jury trials.
Does the Firm Defend Clients in Both Criminal and Civil Procurement Fraud Cases?
Yes. Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends individuals and entities in both criminal and civil procurement fraud proceedings. On the criminal side, the firm defends individuals against wire fraud, false claims, kickback, bid rigging, bribery, and conspiracy charges. On the civil side, the firm defends individuals and companies in False Claims Act actions brought by DOJ and by qui tam whistleblowers.
The firm also defends clients in related administrative proceedings, including suspension and debarment actions, agency audits, and contract disputes. Because procurement fraud investigations frequently generate parallel criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, the firm coordinates the defense across all forums to ensure that actions taken in one proceeding do not compromise the client’s position in another. The firm’s former federal prosecutors navigated these parallel proceeding issues for years. They now use that experience to protect its clients.