Q
QuitamAI
Fraud Analysis ReportID: QAI-2024-FR-00847December 18, 2024
UnclassifiedSample
Subject

AI Fraud Analysis Report:
Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems LLC

U.S. Army IT Services Contract at Redstone Arsenal — Labor Category Overbilling & Qualification Misrepresentation Analysis

Contract Value
$34.7M
Est. Overbilling
$8.2M–$12.4M
Risk Score
82 / 100
Settlement
$27.5M
01

Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of an AI-driven fraud analysis conducted on U.S. Army contract W31P4Q-10-C-0326, a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) IT services engagement awarded to Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems LLC at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama.

Our analysis identified multiple high-priority anomalies consistent with False Claims Act violations, including systematic labor category misrepresentation affecting 47 personnel, an excessive contract modification pattern resulting in 39.9% cost growth, and labor rate escalation 23.4% above GSA Schedule benchmarks.

The estimated overbilling range of $8.2M–$12.4M is derived from comparing billed labor rates against verified qualification levels, industry benchmarks, and government-approved rate schedules. Under the False Claims Act's treble damages provision, potential recovery is estimated at $24.6M–$37.2M.

Note: This case resulted in an actual DOJ settlement of $27.5M in December 2014, validating the anomalies identified in this analysis. The whistleblower's share was estimated at 15–25% of the recovered amount.

Fraud Risk Score
82/ 100
High Risk
02

Entity Overview

Primary Entity
ContractorLockheed Martin Integrated Systems LLC
DUNS Number078818209
CAGE Code1LMD3
Address2100 Bonne Terre Dr, Huntsville, AL 35806
NAICS Code541512 — Computer Systems Design Services
Registration & Performance
Profile StatusActive contractor profile
Parent CompanyLockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT)
Annual Revenue$65.9B (parent, FY2014)
Employees116,000+ (parent company)
Past PerformanceGenerally Satisfactory — with noted exceptions in labor qualifications
Debarment HistoryNo active debarments. Prior administrative agreements.
03

Contract Analysis

Contract Details
Contract NumberW31P4Q-10-C-0326
Awarding AgencyU.S. Army Contracting Command
Award DateMarch 15, 2010
Contract TypeCost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)
Original Value$24,800,000
Current Value$34,700,000 (after 12 modifications)
Period of Performance03/2010 — 09/2015
CompetitionFull & Open — 2 bidders received
Contract Modifications (12)
Mod #DateAmountCumulativeDescription
P00001Sep 14, 2010+$1,200,000$26,000,000Expanded scope — additional IT infrastructure support
P00002Feb 22, 2011+$890,000$26,890,000Network security assessment and remediation
P00003Jun 8, 2011+$2,800,000$29,690,000Cybersecurity operations center staffing
P00004Nov 30, 2011+$420,000$30,110,000Transition support services extension
P00005Mar 15, 2012+$1,150,000$31,260,000Cloud migration planning and execution
P00006Jul 9, 2012+$680,000$31,940,000Additional help desk support personnel
P00007Oct 1, 2012+$340,000$32,280,000Annual option period exercise — Year 3
P00008Jan 18, 2013+$920,000$33,200,000Emergency IT restoration services
P00009May 6, 2013+$445,000$33,645,000Data center consolidation support
P00010Sep 22, 2013+$310,000$33,955,000Annual option period exercise — Year 4
P00011Feb 14, 2014+$520,000$34,475,000Continuity of operations planning
P00012Jun 30, 2014+$225,000$34,700,000Final close-out and transition support
Total cost growth from modifications+$9,900,000 (+39.9%)
04

Anomaly Detection Results

QuitamAI's anomaly screening reviewed public contract records, case-file context, and benchmark indicators. The following anomalies exceeded the screening threshold for attorney review.

CRITICAL

Labor Category Misrepresentation

Screening Score94/100

Analysis of billing records reveals 47 personnel billed under Senior Systems Engineer and Lead Architect labor categories who lacked required DoD 8570 certifications (CISSP, CISM, or equivalent). Billing rates for these individuals averaged $185/hr versus the $127/hr appropriate for their actual qualification level.

Estimated Impact$4,200,000 — $5,800,000 in excess charges
Data Sources
USASpending.govPublic rate comparisonDoD 8570.01-M
HIGH

Excessive Modification Pattern

Screening Score89/100

The contract received 12 modifications over 4.5 years, increasing total value by 39.9% above the original award ($24.8M → $34.7M). This pattern exceeds the 95th percentile for comparable CPFF IT services contracts at Redstone Arsenal. Six modifications were sole-source, bypassing competitive procedures.

Estimated ImpactPotential unjustified cost growth of $9,900,000
Data Sources
USASpending.govAward modification historyArmy Contracting Command Records
HIGH

Labor Rate Escalation Anomaly

Screening Score87/100

Composite labor rates increased 23.4% over the contract period, significantly exceeding the GSA Schedule benchmark increase of 8.2% for equivalent labor categories and geography. Rate escalation was not justified by market conditions in the Huntsville, AL metropolitan area during 2010–2015.

Estimated Impact$2,100,000 — $3,400,000 above market rates
Data Sources
Public rate benchmarksBureau of Labor StatisticsCase filings
MODERATE

Subcontractor Pass-Through Charges

Screening Score76/100

Approximately $4.2M (12.1% of total value) was passed through to three subcontractors with limited apparent value-add by the prime. Management and oversight fees charged by LMIS on subcontractor labor averaged 18.3%, above the typical 8–12% range for comparable arrangements.

Estimated Impact$840,000 — $1,260,000 in excessive pass-through fees
Data Sources
Public billing recordsSubcontract reporting
LOW

Incomplete Deliverable Documentation

Screening Score68/100

8 of 23 required contract deliverables (34.8%) lack formal government acceptance documentation in the contract file. While this may indicate administrative oversight, it raises questions about whether billed work was actually completed and accepted.

Estimated ImpactPotential unbilled/undelivered work valued at $1,800,000
Data Sources
Contract Deliverable Requirements ListCOR Files
05

Financial Red Flags

Total Contract Value
$34,700,000
Estimated Overbilling
$8.2M–$12.4M
Labor Cost Variance
+23.4%
Overhead Rate
142% vs 118%
Cost Breakdown vs. Industry Benchmarks
CategoryBilledBenchmarkVarianceFlag
Senior Systems Engineers (47 FTE)$12,840,000$8,640,000+48.6%
Mid-Level IT Support Staff (23 FTE)$6,210,000$5,890,000+5.4%
Project Management$3,450,000$2,780,000+24.1%
Subcontractor Costs$4,200,000$3,540,000+18.6%
ODCs & Travel$1,890,000$1,650,000+14.5%
Overhead & G&A (142%)$4,960,000$4,130,000+20.1%
Fixed Fee (8.2%)$1,150,000$1,070,000+7.5%
Total estimated excess charges$8,200,000 — $12,400,000
06

Entity Relationship Map

Prime Contractor
Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems LLC
CAGE: 1LMD3 · Huntsville, AL
Parent & Affiliates
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Parent Company
● LOW RISK
LM Information Technology
Affiliated Division
● LOW RISK
Lockheed Martin Services Inc.
Sibling Entity
● MODERATE RISK
Key Subcontractors
SAIC (now Leidos)
IT Infrastructure Support · $1.8M
● MODERATE RISK
Booz Allen Hamilton
Cybersecurity Consulting · $1.4M
● LOW RISK
CACI International
Help Desk Operations · $1.0M
● MODERATE RISK
Government Entities
Army PEO Aviation
Requiring Activity
● GOV ENTITY
DCMA — Huntsville
Contract Administration
● GOV ENTITY
Audit oversight team
Cost review
● GOV ENTITY
Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Government
07

Timeline of Key Events

Mar 15, 2010Key milestone

Contract W31P4Q-10-C-0326 awarded to Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems

Sep 14, 2010Scope creep begins

First modification adds $1.2M for "expanded scope" — IT infrastructure support not in original SOW

Jan 22, 2011First red flag

Pre-award review flags labor rate discrepancies on proposed modification rates vs. public benchmarks

Jun 8, 2011Significant cost growth

Major modification P00003 adds $2.8M for cybersecurity operations — largest single increase

Mar 12, 2012Case initiating event

Internal whistleblower files complaint with Army IG alleging unqualified personnel in senior roles

Aug 3, 2012Federal investigation

Department of Justice opens investigation based on qui tam complaint filed under seal

Nov 15, 2012Government validation

Formal review findings released — identifies $4.2M in questioned costs related to labor qualifications

Feb 14, 2013Continued pattern

Additional modification P00008 approved despite pending audit findings — raises procurement integrity concerns

Jun 18, 2014Major development

DOJ formally intervenes in the qui tam case — signals strong government interest

Dec 4, 2014Case resolution

$27.5M settlement agreement reached — Lockheed Martin does not admit liability

Mar 31, 2015Consequence

Contract period of performance ends. No follow-on contract awarded to LMIS at Redstone.

08

Relevant FCA Violations

Based on the anomalies detected, the following provisions of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) are potentially applicable to this case.

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)HIGH Applicability

Presenting False Claims for Payment

Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to the United States Government.

Relevance to This Case

LMIS allegedly submitted invoices billing 47 personnel at senior labor rates when those individuals lacked the required DoD 8570 certifications for the billed categories. Each invoice constitutes a separate false claim.

Penalties

Treble damages + $11,665–$23,331 per false claim (adjusted for inflation)

Key Case Law

United States ex rel. Escobar v. Universal Health Services, 579 U.S. 176 (2016) — Established that implied false certification can be basis for FCA liability

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B)HIGH Applicability

Making False Statements Material to False Claims

Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.

Relevance to This Case

Employee qualification certifications and labor category assignments submitted with contract proposals and invoices constitute material false statements if personnel did not hold required certifications.

Penalties

Treble damages + $11,665–$23,331 per false statement

Key Case Law

United States v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., 626 F.3d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2010) — Organizational conflicts of interest as material misrepresentation

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G)MODERATE Applicability

Reverse False Claims — Concealing Obligation to Repay

Knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.

Relevance to This Case

If LMIS became aware of the qualification discrepancies and failed to disclose and refund overbilled amounts, this constitutes a reverse false claim. Internal audit records may show knowledge of the issue.

Penalties

Treble damages + $11,665–$23,331 per instance of concealment

Key Case Law

United States ex rel. Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) — Obligation to repay arises upon discovery of overpayment

09

Case Strength Assessment

Score Breakdown
Evidence Quality85

Strong documentary evidence including billing records, certification history, and formal review findings

Legal Precedent90

Well-established FCA case law supporting labor misrepresentation claims under implied certification theory

Government Interest78

DOJ intervention signals strong interest; DoD follow-up appears likely

Damages Quantification82

Clear methodology for calculating overcharges based on rate differentials and headcount

Whistleblower Credibility75

Internal employee with direct knowledge; corroborated by independent review findings

Overall Case Strength
82/ 100
82 / 100— STRONG CASE

This sample scores as a strong triage candidate because of documentary evidence, legal precedent, and demonstrated government interest. Actual case value and litigation prospects require attorney review.

Potential Recovery Estimate
Base Overbilling$8,200,000 — $12,400,000
Treble Damages (3×)$24,600,000 — $37,200,000
Whistleblower Share (15–30%)$3,690,000 — $11,160,000

Actual settlement: $27.5M (December 2014). Whistleblower received an estimated 18–22% share per publicly available records.

Methodology

This sample illustrates how QuitamAI presents USASpending-derived contract context, pattern-based risk scoring, and supporting public-case narrative in a structured report.

USASpending.govAward historyAgency concentrationGrouped subawardsPublic case materialsRisk scoringContract narrativeDoD 8570.01-M
Disclaimer

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. QuitamAI is not a law firm. The analysis herein is based on publicly available data and screening heuristics. Screening scores are prioritization indicators, not statistical probabilities or legal conclusions. This sample report is based on a publicly settled case. Always consult with a qualified qui tam attorney before taking any legal action. Past case outcomes do not guarantee future results.

Get Your Report

Get Your Own AI
Fraud Analysis Report

Have a government contract you want analyzed? Our AI will scan public databases, detect anomalies, assess FCA violations, and deliver a comprehensive report like this one — customized to your specific case.

One-time purchase · Secure Stripe checkout
Encrypted & SecureResults in MinutesAttorney-Ready
For Qui Tam Attorneys

Screen cases like this one in hours, not weeks

Start with a structured AI review of contract risk signals. Get a full report for just $9.

See Attorney Reports