Altegrity Fraud Charges - USA Ex - Rel BlakePercival v. US Investigations Services

Case 1:14-cv-00726-RMC Document 1-2 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 151

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

ex rel. BLAKE PERCIVAL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-527-WKW
v. )
)
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS )
SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Based upon the United States’s election to intervene in this action pursuant to
the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(A) (Doc. # 24), it is ORDERED that
1. the relator’s complaint, the Government’s Notice of Intervention, and
this Order be unsealed;
2. the United States serve its Complaint upon Defendant, together with
this Order, on or before January 22, 2014;
3. all other papers or orders on file in this matter shall remain under seal;
and
4. the seal shall be lifted on all matters occurring in this action after the
date of this Order.
DONE this 29th day of October, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DIVISION

ex rel. BLAKE PERCIVAL )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 11-CV-527-WKW
v. )
)
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.,)
)
Defendant. )
)
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT

(False Claims Act; Breach of Contract)
Plaintiff, the United States of America (United States), by its undersigned counsel,
represents as follows:
1. The United States brings this civil action to recover treble damages and penalties
under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 (FCA), and to recover damages and other
monetary relief for breach of contract. This action arises from false statements and claims that
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, Inc. (USIS) knowingly presented to, or caused to be
presented to, the United States and the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
related to background investigations that were not reviewed in accordance with the requirements
of the parties’ contracts, in violation of the FCA and the common law.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the United States’ claims brought
under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3279, et seq., pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730 and 3732.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to entertain the common law causes of action under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1367(a).
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over USIS pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a)
because USIS transacts business and is found in this district.
4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), and under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1395(a), because USIS transacts business in this District.
II. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff is the United States of America, acting on behalf of the United States
Office of Personnel Management.
6. Relator Blake Percival is a United States citizen and resident of Alabama who
was employed by USIS from 2001 through June 2011. From January 2011 until the end of his
employment with USIS, Mr. Percival was the Director of Fieldwork Services at USIS.
7. Defendant USIS is a company organized pursuant to the laws of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Falls Church, VA. USIS employs over 2,500 credentialed field
investigators and other employees who work in all fifty states, including Alabama.
III. BACKGROUND
A. The Federal False Claims Act
8. The False Claims Act, as amended by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
of 2009 (FERA), Pub. L. 111-21, § 4(f), 123 Stat. 1617, 1625 (2009), provides in pertinent part
that a person is liable to the United States government for three times the amount of damages the
government sustains plus a penalty if the person “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented,
a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) (2009). Prior
to the FERA amendments, this provision provided that a person is liable to the United States
2
government if the person “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or
employee of the United States Government…[a] false or fraudulent claim for payment or
approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (2006).
9. As amended by FERA, the FCA also makes a person liable to the United States
government for three times the amount of damages which the government sustains, plus a
penalty, if the person “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or
statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) (2009). Prior to
the FERA amendments, this provision provided that a person is liable to the United States
government if the person “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or
statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government.” 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(a)(2) (2006).
10. The FCA, as amended, defines the term “claim” to mean “any request or demand,
whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or property and whether or not the United
States has title to the money or property, that (i) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of
the United States; or (ii) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money or
property is to be drawn down or used on the Government’s behalf or to advance a Government
program or interest, and if the United States Government (i) provides or has provided any portion
of the money or property requested or demanded; or (ii) will reimburse such contractor, grantee,
or other recipient for any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded….”
31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A) (2009). As relevant to this civil action, the FERA amendments
clarified, but did not substantially change, the definition of “claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)
(2006).
3
11. The FCA defines the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” to mean that a person,
with respect to information: (1) “has actual knowledge of the information;” (2) “acts in deliberate
ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information;” or (3) “acts in reckless disregard of the truth
or falsity of the information.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(A) (2009). The FCA further provides that
“no proof of specific intent to defraud” is required. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b) (2006); 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(b)(1)(B) (2009).
12. The United States alleges that, from at least March 2008 through September 2012,
USIS violated the foregoing provisions of the FCA by seeking payment for background
investigations purportedly completed in accordance with the requirements of its contracts with
OPM, when it knew the contractually required quality review had not occurred on those
investigations. Due to USIS’s fraudulent conduct, OPM accepted and paid for background
investigations it would not otherwise have accepted or paid for had it known the truth.
B. USIS’s Contractual Relationship with OPM
13. OPM’s Federal Investigative Service (FIS) is responsible for performing
background investigations of current or prospective federal employees or contractors for a
variety of federal agencies. OPM conducts background investigations for over one hundred
federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Transportation, Department of
Treasury, and Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency.
14. On average, OPM conducts over 2.2 million background investigations per year.
15. While some of the background investigations are performed by OPM staff, OPM
also contracts with various private companies to perform the fieldwork on the investigations for
OPM.
4
16. USIS is one of several companies that OPM has contracted with over the years to
conduct the fieldwork on the background investigations. USIS has been conducting background
investigations for OPM under government contracts since 1996.
17. During the relevant time period, USIS entered into two separate fieldwork
contracts related to background investigations: (1) Contract Number OPM04-06-00013; and (2)
OPM15-110-C-0015 (collectively, the “Fieldwork Contracts”). USIS also entered into a support
services contract, Contract No. OPM04-06-00004 (the “Support Contract”).
i. The 2006 Fieldwork Contract
18. The first fieldwork contract at issue here, Contract Number OPM04-06-00013,
was executed with an effective date of July 7, 2006. Under that contract, USIS was responsible
for conducting the investigatory fieldwork on applicants seeking new or continued employment
with federal agencies or one of their contractors. Depending upon the type of investigation at
issue, the contractually required fieldwork might entail conducting interviews of the applicant
and/or friends or family of the applicant, conducting educational or employment records checks,
running law checks, and/or running a check of the applicant’s credit history. Background
investigators prepare “Reports of Investigations,” or “ROIs,” documenting the results of their
interviews and/or record checks on an applicant.
19. The contract also required that USIS conduct a quality review on each ROI
comprising a background investigation, also referred to as a “case,” before submitting the
completed case to OPM for processing and payment. Specifically, Section C.6.1.2 of the
contract, titled “Contractor Quality Control – Compliance with Quality Standards,” stated as
follows:
The contractor shall conduct a pre-submission quality review of all OPM products and
shall maintain an inspection and evaluation system to ensure all investigative work
products and other deliverables submitted to OPM conform to the contract requirements
5
and, where applicable, national investigative and adjudicative standards. The contractor
shall not submit for payment any report that does not meet the requirements of this
contract.
20. Section C.9.4.1 of the contract further stated: “The Contractor shall conduct a
quality review of all investigative reports to ensure that the investigations are conducted in
accordance with the guidance in this SOW and as outlined in the OPM Investigator’s Draft
Handbook Version 5-Dated March 2005 and Handbook Revisions Notices.”
21. USIS understood that it was required to conduct a full quality review on each
background investigation prior to submitting the completed investigation to OPM for processing
and payment. In the Technical Proposal that USIS submitted for the contract, USIS stated:
“Field Operations Support staffs conduct a quality review of all investigative reports prior to
delivery.” USIS further stated in its Technical Proposal: “USIS’ Quality Control Program
provides at least one level of quality Inspection for every ROI submitted.”
22. After the fieldwork was completed and the background investigation was
supposedly reviewed by a USIS Reviewer, the completed background investigation was sent to
OPM for processing. At that point, OPM would pay USIS the vast majority of the payment due
under the contract for the completed background investigation. The remainder of the payment
would be made after the case was processed and closed by OPM. The amount OPM paid USIS
for completed background investigations ranged from $95 to $2,500, depending upon the type of
background investigation at issue.
ii. The 2011 Fieldwork Contract
23. In 2011, USIS and OPM entered into a follow-on contract to the 2006 fieldwork
contract with an effective date of December 1, 2011. Like the 2006 contract, USIS was
responsible under the 2011 contract for conducting the fieldwork on any background
investigations assigned to it by OPM.
6
24. The 2011 fieldwork contract similarly required USIS to conduct a pre-submission
quality review on each and every ROI comprising a case. Specifically, Section C7 of the
contract, titled “Contractor Quality Control – Compliance with Quality Standards,” states:
The Contractor shall conduct a pre-submission quality review by a qualified reviewer of

all OPM-FIS products and shall maintain an inspection and evaluation system to ensure
that all investigative work products and other deliverables submitted to OPM conform to
contract requirements, national investigative and adjudicative standards. The Contractor
shall not submit for payment any case that does not meet the requirements of this
contract.
25. Section F.8 of the contract further provides: “The Contractor shall deliver
completed, reviewed investigative items electronically to OPM . . . .”
26. The 2011 fieldwork contract remains in effect.
iii. The Support Contract
27. In addition to the Fieldwork Contracts, USIS was also awarded the Support
Contract, under which it was responsible for assisting OPM with various administrative tasks
related to the background investigations program.
28. Pursuant to that contract, USIS was responsible for, among other things:
scheduling background investigations for OPM; various case/file management functions,
including finger print processing, generic record searches, and case control file processing; and
imaging files of completed investigations for retention.
29. Under the Support Contract, USIS was also responsible for conducting a final
review of, and closing, background investigations conducted by all OPM contractors, which
included background investigations that USIS itself had completed under the Fieldwork
Contracts. Once a contractor completed a background investigation, it was sent to OPM for
processing. At that point, a final review of the entire background investigation would be
conducted before the investigation was closed and sent to the agency that requested the
7
investigation. OPM itself would review certain types of background investigations. The rest
would be sent to USIS under the Support Contract and USIS would conduct the final review and
closing of the case for OPM.
30. USIS has a designated team called the Closing Authorization and Support Team
(CAST) that was responsible for conducting a review of the completed background
investigations and then closing those investigations so that they could be sent to the agency that
had requested the investigation. FIS determined the investigations to be closed by FIS federal
staff and those to be sent to CAST for review and closing.
C. The Work Flow Process
31. During the relevant time period, the assignment and management of the
background investigations process between OPM and its contractors was handled electronically.
Specifically, when FIS received a request from an agency to complete a background
investigation, the relevant information was entered into OPM’s electronic Personnel Information
Processing System (“PIPs”). PIPs recorded who would be conducting the investigation (FIS
versus a contractor) and the schedule for completion of the fieldwork on the investigation.
32. If an investigation was assigned to USIS, PIPs electronically forwarded the
information related to the investigation to USIS. Included in the information forwarded to USIS
was the due date by which the completed file had to be returned to OPM. Typically, FIS gave
USIS and other contractors sixty to ninety days to complete a background investigation.
33. After it was assigned a background investigation, a USIS employee referred to as
a Workload Leader reviewed the information on the case, and then assigned the case to a
particular USIS region (or multiple regions if the applicant lived in more than one geographic
area during the relevant time period). The case was reviewed by a second Workload Leader
within the designated region(s) and then assigned to a particular background investigator(s).
8
34. The Fieldwork Contracts required that all background investigators perform full
and complete investigations on each applicant. Background investigators were responsible for
preparing ROIs documenting the results of their investigatory fieldwork. If an applicant lived in
multiple geographic areas during the time period of the investigation, multiple field investigators
would be assigned, and each would prepare its own ROI. Thus, each applicant’s background
investigation file could have been comprised of multiple ROIs.
35. After ROIs were completed, they were transmitted to OPM’s mainframe in the
District of Columbia. They were then accessed remotely by a Workload Leader at USIS’s
facility in Western Pennsylvania, who then assigned the ROIs to USIS Reviewers. The
Fieldwork Contracts required USIS to conduct a quality review on each and every ROI to ensure
that it conformed to OPM standards. USIS understood that the Fieldwork Contracts required that
a quality review by a USIS Reviewer be conducted on each ROI before submission to OPM for
payment.
36. The USIS Reviewer reviewed the ROI and, if the Reviewer determined that
additional fieldwork needed to be conducted or that the ROI otherwise did not conform to OPM
standards, the Reviewer sent the ROI back to the field investigator for additional work. If the
Reviewer determined that no additional fieldwork was needed and that the ROI conformed to
OPM standards, then the Reviewer made an electronic “Review Complete” notation in OPM’s
PIPs system.
37. After the last ROI on a case had been submitted in PIPs and identified by USIS
with a “Review Complete” notation, the completed background investigation was automatically
identified in PIPs as “Field Finished,” which triggered the automatic release of the case to OPM
for processing.
9
38. Once a case was transferred through PIPs to OPM as “field finished,” it triggered
OPMs obligation to pay USIS the initial payment for that case. OPM then forwarded to USIS
the initial payment amount for that case type. The remainder of the payment amount was sent by
OPM to USIS after the case was closed. Payments under the Fieldwork Contracts were made by
electronic transfer through the Treasury Financial Communications System.
39. In addition to the payments USIS received for each completed background
investigation, under the Fieldworks Contracts, USIS was also eligible for and received annual
bonus payments for meeting certain OPM goals. Specifically, each year, OPM evaluated USIS’s
performance in three areas: timeliness of completed background investigations, quality of work,
and program management. Depending upon its performance in each of these areas, USIS would
be eligible to receive an annual bonus payment. The decision to award a bonus, and the amount
of that bonus, was entirely within the discretion of OPM.
40. USIS was awarded and received bonus payments for fiscal years 2008
($2,418,109), 2009 ($3,504,636), and 2010 ($5,826,853), which totaled $11,749,598. Had OPM
been aware of USIS’s actions, as detailed below, it would not have awarded USIS the bonuses
above because it would not have deemed USIS’s performance acceptable in the timeliness and/or
program management areas.
41. After a background investigation was closed by OPM, the completed file was
forwarded to the agency that requested the investigation. The agency was then responsible for
reviewing the file and making any necessary determinations regarding the applicant’s eligibility
for new or continued employment and/or possession of a security clearance.
10
IV. The Fraudulent Scheme
A. USIS’s Dumping Practices
42. Beginning in at least March 2008 and continuing through at least September
2012, USIS management devised and executed a scheme to deliberately circumvent contractually
required quality reviews of completed background investigations in order to increase the
company’s revenues and profits. Specifically, USIS devised a practice referred to internally as
“dumping” or “flushing,” which involved releasing cases to OPM and representing them as
complete when, in fact, not all ROIs comprising those cases had received a quality review as
required by the Fieldwork Contracts.
43. USIS engaged in the practice of dumping in order to meet budgeted goals and,
therefore, increase its revenues and profits. Given that USIS was paid by OPM for each
completed case, the more cases USIS completed each month the more money it received from
OPM. USIS’s dumping practices also enabled the company to receive annual performance
incentive payments that it would not otherwise have been entitled to receive absent the dumping.
44. Initially, USIS would dump cases manually. Soon after the dumping started,
however, USIS began using a software program called Blue Zone to assist in the dumping
practices. Through Blue Zone, USIS was able to identify a large number of background
investigations, quickly make an electronic “Review Complete” notation indicating that the ROIs
at issue had gone through the review process even if they had not, and then automatically release
all of those ROIs to OPM with the “Review Complete” notation attached. By using Blue Zone,
USIS was able to substantially increase the number of background investigations that could be
dumped in a short time period.
45. The dumping occurred at USIS’s Western Pennsylvania facility. The dumping
was effectuated primarily, but not exclusively, by a specific employee in that facility, a USIS
11
Workload Leader. Each morning, the Workload Leader and others would identify all of the
ROIs that needed to be reviewed that day in order to meet USIS’s internal goals. The Workload
Leader would then assign the ROIs to the various USIS Reviewers in the Western Pennsylvania
facility. USIS Reviewers were instructed to review as many ROIs as possible during the work
day.
46. At the end of the day, the Workload Leader and/or other designated staff would
determine how many assigned ROIs had not been reviewed that day. Using Blue Zone, the
Workload Leader and/or other designated staff would then “dump” some or all of the ROIs that
the review team had been unable to review. ROIs ready for review but which had not been
assigned to a Reviewer that day might also be dumped. The Workload Leader and the other
individuals who carried out the dumping actions were instructed to engage in dumping by their
supervisors and other members of USIS management, as described below.
47. At first, dumping occurred only at the end of the day. Eventually, however, the
dumping became more frequent. USIS’s internal budgeted number of cases to be reviewed each
day increased over time and, as a result, more cases needed to be dumped to meet monthly goals
set by USIS management. As a result, the Workload Leader and the other individuals involved
in the dumping began dumping cases at various times throughout the day, and the number of
cases that were dumped increased.
48. The Workload Leader, in coordination with his supervisor, USIS’s Quality
Control Manager in the Western Pennsylvania facility, would assign a priority system to the
various ROIs in an attempt to mitigate the negative effects of the dumping. These employees
would assign priority codes to the various ROIs ranging from 1-6 depending upon the “risk”
level associated with the ROI. For example, a more complicated ROI involving extensive
12
fieldwork might be assigned a priority code of 1 or 2, whereas a less complicated ROI involving
only one interview or simply a record check might be assigned a priority code of 6. When it
came time to determine which cases to dump, the Workload Leader or other designated
individual(s) would first dump the ROIs with a priority code of 6. If more cases needed to be
dumped, they would then move to priority 5 cases and so on.
49. While dumping occurred on a daily basis, the number of cases dumped tended to
increase significantly at the end of the month, quarter, and year. At those times, USIS
management, including, but not limited to, USIS’s Production Support Manager and USIS’s
Director of National Quality Assurance, would often direct the Workload Leader and his
supervisor, the Quality Control Manager, to clear out the shelves, which they understood to mean
that they should release all cases in the queue waiting to be reviewed. This practice was
followed in order to meet USIS’s internal goals for completed cases and, therefore, to increase
the company’s revenues and profits.
50. In addition to the Workload Leader, other USIS employees who at times
performed dumping included, but were not limited to, USIS’s Director of National Quality
Assurance and Quality Control Manager, both of whom both worked in USIS’s Western
Pennsylvania facility.
B. USIS Management Was Aware of and Directed the Dumping
51. USIS Senior Management was fully aware of and, in fact, directed the dumping
practices. Beginning in at least March 2008, USIS’s President/CEO established the internal
revenue goals for USIS. USIS’s Chief Financial Officer determined how many cases needed to
be reviewed or dumped to meet those goals.
52. The number of cases needed to be reviewed or dumped to meet revenue goals was
conveyed to USIS’s Vice President of Field Operations and USIS’s President of Investigative
13
Service Division, who in turn communicated this information to other members of USIS
management, including USIS’s Production Support Senior Manager. The Production Support
Senior Manager and others, in turn, would convey those goals to other USIS employees, namely
USIS’s Director of National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager in Western
Pennsylvania, and would provide instructions to those employees on when and how many cases
needed to be reviewed or dumped to meet USIS’s goals. These employees would then instruct
the Workload Leader to dump the number of cases necessary to meet USIS’s goals. The
instructions from the Director of National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager to
dump cases were made verbally via telephone, in some face-to-face meetings, and occasionally
over email.
53. Internal USIS documents confirm that USIS Senior Management was aware of
and directed the dumping practices. For example, in one undated internal document, a USIS
employee discussing the dumping practices stated: “They will dump cases when word comes
from above, such as from [the President of Investigative Service Division] and [the
President/CEO]. In the past, [the President of Investigative Service Division] and [the
President/CEO] have told us to clear out our shelves in order to hit revenue. When this is done
they will dump all [priority code] 6. If [the President of Investigative Service Division] and [the
President/CEO] tell them they need to clear out more then they will dump [priority code] 5’s….
Last July through September we were dumping all [priority code] 4, 5, and 6’s per [the President
of Investigative Service Division] and [the President/CEO].”
54. Another email chain dated September 16 and 17, 2010 involving USIS’s Vice
President of Field Operations and its President of Investigative Service Division, among others,
discussed the need to dump cases to meet revenue goals. The Vice President of Field
14
Operations referenced USIS’s revenue situation as “[w]e all own this baby, and right now we are
holding one ugly baby.” The USIS Workload Leader in Western Pennsylvania forwarded that
email to the Director of National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager in Western
Pennsylvania and responded: “The only two things we can do in review to get them out faster is
to (a) hire or (b) dump…. I don’t know if there’s any other levers left to flip other than dumping
everything we know is bad. Just a side note, the more MSPC [Master Scheduling Production
Control] rams through, the more the field will transmit sub-standards, and the more [the number
of cases needing secondary review] will go up. Come EOM [End of Month], if they’re going to
tell us to just dump all those cases anyways without a proper review, which [sic] will only make
that ugly baby even uglier…”
55. Internal USIS emails confirm that USIS management was acutely aware of the
dumping of cases. Every day, the Workload Leader in Western Pennsylvania would send an
email to his supervisors with the subject line “EOD [End of Day] Numbers.” The email would
detail the number of ROIs released by USIS during that day, and often the emails would contain
comments about the number of cases dumped. For example, an email dated April 30, 2010 from
the Workload Leader to the Director of National Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Manager states: “Shelves are as clean as they could get. Flushed everything like a dead
goldfish.” Another email dated May 25, 2010 involving the same group of people reads: “We
dumped all we could to try and hit the 1100 mark but fell short…even dumped the new
flagged/flushed [cases pulled from the field] and got ahead on secondary, but just didn’t have
what we need [to meet USIS’s internal goals].”
56. Other internal emails show that dumping was a frequent and accepted occurrence
at USIS. In an email dated October 29, 2010, the Workload Leader in Western Pennsylvania
15
sent a message to the Director of National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager,
among others, stating, “t’is Flushy McFlushershon at his merry hijinks again!! **leprechaun
dance**…I’m not tired…” In another example, on December 27, 2010, the Workload Leader
also wrote to the Director of National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control Manager:
“Scalping tickets for ‘Dick Clark’s Dumpin’ New Year’s Eve! …Who needs 2? Have a bit of a
backlog building, but fortunately, most people are off this week so no one will notice!”
C. Examples of Dumped Background Investigations
57. During the time period March 2008 through September 2012, USIS released at
least 665,000 background investigations to OPM and represented them as complete when, in
fact, one or more of the ROIs comprising those background investigations had not received a
quality review as required by the Fieldwork Contracts. This represented approximately forty
percent of the total background investigations conducted by USIS during that time frame.
58. The background investigations that were dumped spanned most government
agencies, including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of
Health and Human Services, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, and
Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, and included most types of background
investigations.
59. The background investigations that were dumped included the less complicated
investigations such as National Agency Checks with Law Checks (NACLC), which involve a
check of the applicant’s credit history, legal record and a check of government agency files (e.g.,
Federal Bureau of Investigation files and fingerprint records). The dumped investigations also
included more complicated investigations such as Single Scope Background Investigations
(SSBI), which involve, among other things, the law, credit and agency checks noted above as
16
well as interviews of past and present employers, coworkers, and other individuals associated
with the subject of the investigation.
60. USIS would dump ROIs knowing that there could potentially be quality issues
associated with those dumped ROIs. For example, an email dated October 6, 2010 from a USIS
employee to, among others, the Director of National Quality Assurance and the Quality Control
Manager regarding a meeting on USIS’s Case Deficient Rate, states: “We can not get a clear
quality rating when we dump half our cases.” “Quality rating” refers to the rate at which cases
are “kicked back” to USIS for further rework after the second level review conducted by FIS
staff.
61. Examples of cases improperly dumped by USIS include:
• On or around January 07, 2009, USIS received a request from OPM to

conduct a background investigation on AA, an employee of the Department of
the Interior. On or around March 5, 2009, USIS released that background
investigation to OPM and, by doing so, represented that the background
investigation had received the contractually required quality review by USIS.
In fact, at least one of the ROIs comprising that background investigation did
not receive the quality review required by the contract. Following receipt of
the background investigation from USIS, the background investigation
received a federally controlled quality review by OPM and was closed.
Believing that the background investigation had been conducted by USIS in
accordance with the requirements of the contract, OPM paid USIS $999.21 for
that background investigation on or around March 6, 2009.
• On or around January 7, 2010, USIS received a request from OPM to conduct

a background investigation on BB, an employee of the Department of
Defense. On or around February 17, 2010, USIS released that background
Believing that the background investigation had been conducted in accordance
17
with the requirements of the contract, OPM paid USIS $497.88 for that
background investigation on or around February 17, 2010.
• On or around February 22, 2010, USIS received a request from OPM to

conduct a background investigation on CC, a contractor for the Department of
Defense. On or around March 17, 2010, USIS released that background
Believing that the background investigation had been conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the contract, OPM paid USIS $2,028.02 for that
background investigation on or around March 17, 2010.
• On or around August 01, 2010, USIS received a request from OPM to conduct
a background investigation on DD, an employee of the Department of
Homeland Security. On or around August 26, 2010, USIS released that
background investigation to OPM and, by doing so, represented that the
background investigation had received the contractually required quality
review by USIS. In fact, at least one of the ROIs comprising that background
investigation did not receive the quality review required by the contract.
Following receipt of the background investigation from USIS, the background
investigation received a federally controlled quality review by OPM and was
closed. Believing that the background investigation had been conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the contract, OPM paid USIS $470.72 for
that background investigation on or around August 26, 2010.
• On or around December 21, 2010, USIS received a request from OPM to

conduct a background investigation on EE, a contractor for the Department of
Homeland Security. On or around January 11, 2011, USIS released that
background investigation to OPM and, by doing so, represented that the
18
accordance with the requirements of the contract, OPM paid USIS $1,067.75
for that background investigation on or around January 11, 2011.
• On or around June 22, 2011 USIS received a request from OPM to conduct a
background investigation on FF, an employee of the Department of Defense,
Defense Intelligence Agency. On or around August 16, 2011, USIS released
that background investigation to OPM and, by doing so, represented that the
accordance with the requirements of the contract, OPM paid USIS $1,754.37
for that background investigation on or around September 12, 2011.
62. Had OPM been aware that USIS had not conducted a quality review on the
background investigations listed above, it would not have accepted those investigations as
complete and would not have paid USIS for the investigations.
63. The examples listed above are just some of the thousands of background
investigations improperly dumped by USIS. Due to its fraudulent conduct, USIS received
millions of dollars that it otherwise would not have received had OPM been aware that the
background investigations had not gone through the quality review process required by the
Fieldwork Contracts. In addition, had OPM been aware of USIS’s fraudulent conduct, it would
not have awarded USIS performance awards for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, which totaled
$11,749,598.
D. USIS Concealed its Dumping Practices from OPM
64. In order to ensure that it’s dumping practices would continue undetected, USIS
took a variety of actions to conceal the dumping from OPM.
19
65. In April 2011, OPM conducted a data analysis of information submitted by USIS
in PIPs for a one week period from February 21, 2011 through February 28, 2011. OPM’s
analysis showed that a small group of USIS employees were identified as having released a
substantial number of cases when compared with the workload of other Reviewers. OPM’s
analysis also showed that a large number of ROIs were identified as “Review Complete” when
the metadata revealed that the ROI had never been opened by a USIS Reviewer. OPM raised
these concerns in a letter to USIS dated April 4, 2011.
66. USIS’s response to the April 4, 2011 letter never disclosed that the true reason
those employees released large numbers of ROIs was because they were not actually reviewing
the ROIs, but instead were dumping them. Nor did USIS reveal that the true reason the metadata
showed the ROIs as never having been opened by USIS was because Blue Zone was
automatically identifying them as “Review Complete” and then USIS was releasing them to
OPM as complete. Instead, USIS falsely responded that it conducts quality reviews on all ROIs
submitted to OPM and falsely attributed the issues noted by OPM to a variety of software
problems and glitches. This response letter, dated April 19, 2011, was signed by USIS’s Vice
President of Field Operations, who, as detailed above, was aware of and directed the dumping
practices.
67. USIS also ensured that all dumping practices stopped when OPM was on site
conducting audits. For example, USIS delayed dumping cases in September 2011 because FIS
personnel were on site at USIS’s facility in Western Pennsylvania conducting an
audit/inspection. As shown in an internal email dated October 3, 2011 from the President of the
USIS Investigative Services Division to USIS’s President/CEO and Chief Financial Officer,
20
USIS was concerned about dumping cases while OPM was on site conducting the September
2011 audit:
Looks like we are going to have quite a bit more to push into FY12 than we anticipated.
We currently have the highest dollar amount ever in WPA [Western Pennsylvania
facility] pending review and release to the customer….almost $8M.
This is driven by a few things….
1. The behavior of not pushing too close to the FY utilizing OT [overtime]

2. The detailing to support services
3. High level of scrutiny with mass case releases. (OPM is actually auditing
the review team today and tomorrow)
68. An October 4, 2011 email from USIS’s Chief Financial Officer in response to the
email above from the Vice President of the Investigative Service Division confirms that USIS
waited to dump/flush the September cases until October, after the audit was concluded: “At the
risk of sounding obvious, we need a robust review recovery plan for October. Most of the
September miss should “flush” in October, on top of the October number we have included in
our budget….”
69. USIS took other actions to conceal its dumping practices from OPM. For
example, as discussed above, FIS would conduct a review on certain of the background
investigations conducted by USIS and other contractors. If, during that review, OPM determined
that a case was deficient and failed to meet OPM standards, it was “kicked back” to the
contractor for further work. USIS was required to keep logs of the number of such cases. The
logs identified the USIS Reviewer who purportedly reviewed and then released the deficient case
to OPM for processing. OPM had the ability to audit USIS’s logs.
70. Because of USIS’s dumping practices, the Workload Leader in Western
Pennsylvania who primarily performed the dumping had an inordinate number of cases released
under his identification number “kicked back” to him by OPM. In order to avoid any suspicions
21
by OPM about the work being conducted by that Workload Leader in the event OPM chose to
audit USIS’s logs, USIS management instructed employees in the Western Pennsylvania facility
not to log any deficient cases “kicked back” from OPM that had been released by that person.
This practice was summed up in an email dated April 7, 2010 from a USIS employee to the USIS
Quality Control Manager in Western Pennsylvania, among others:
Just a reminder that, any roiff [Report of Investigation, Field Finished] logged for [the
Workload Leader] should not be marked as deficient. Also, please do not indicate auto
released. Instead, include a brief summary of what was deficient. We do not want the
customer to see this should we be audited again. Sorry if I did not relay this previously.
I have gone in and changed any that were marked deficient since last August.
71. USIS personnel working on the Fieldwork Contracts also improperly used
information received by USIS pursuant to its responsibilities under the Support Contract in order
to prevent OPM from discovering its dumping scheme. USIS employees responsible for the
review of background investigations under the Fieldwork Contracts would determine which
categories or types of cases FIS was likely to be targeting for review by the federal staff, as
opposed to those cases more likely to be directed to CAST for review and closing. The
Workload Leader in Pennsylvania who primarily performed the dumping and other designated
personnel would then avoid dumping those types of cases. This was done to minimize the risk
that cases would be kicked back to USIS by FIS for further rework, and raise concerns at OPM
about the quality of the review process. For example, in an email dated June 2, 2010, the
Workload Leader wrote to the Quality Control Manager: “We autod what we could yesterday,
but we didn’t ‘flush’ PPRs because of the CAST changes.”
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I: False or Fraudulent Claims

(31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) (2009), formerly 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(2006))
72. Paragraphs 1 through 71 are re-alleged as though fully set forth herein.
22
73. USIS knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim
for payment or approval. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (2009).
74. USIS knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, to an officer or employee
of the United States government, false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval. 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(a)(1)(2006).
75. Because of the Defendant’s acts, the United States sustained damages in an
amount to be determined at trial and, therefore, is entitled to treble damages under the False
Claims Act, plus penalties of not less than $5,500 and up to $11,000 for each violation.
Count II: False Statements

(31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) (2009), formerly 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2)(2006))
76. Paragraphs 1 through 71 are re-alleged as though fully set forth herein.
77. USIS knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, a false record or
statement material to a false or fraudulent claim. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) (2009).
78. USIS knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, a false record or
statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government. 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(a)(2) (2006).
79. Because of the Defendant’s acts, the United States sustained damages in an
amount to be determined at trial and, therefore, is entitled to treble damages under the False
Claims Act, plus penalties of not less than $5,500 and up to $11,000 for each violation.
Count III: Breach of Contract
80. Paragraphs 1 through 71 are re-alleged as though fully stated herein.
81. OPM entered into a contract with USIS in July 2006 for the performance of
background investigation services of prospective or current federal employees or contractors.
OPM entered into a follow-on contract with USIS in December 2011.
23
82. USIS materially breached its contracts with OPM by failing to perform quality
reviews on all ROIs released to OPM for processing as required under the terms of the contracts.
83. As a result of USIS’s breach of contract, the United States has sustained damages
in an amount to be determined at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff, the United States, demands judgment against Defendant as follows:
Under Counts I and II (False Claims Act), for an amount of the United States’ damages,
trebled as required by law, plus such civil penalties as are required by law, together with all such
further relief as may be just and proper;
Under Count III (Breach of Contract), for the damages sustained by the United States,
plus interest and costs, and all such further relief as may be just and proper;
Such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper, together with interest and costs
of this action.
THE UNITED STATES DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL AS TO ALL ISSUES SO
TRIABLE.
Respectfully submitted,
STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
GEORGE L. BECK, JR.

United States Attorney
Middle District of Alabama
24
/s/ James Dubois

JAMES J. DUBOIS
Assistant United States Attorney
GA Bar Number: 231445
P.O. Box 197
Montgomery, AL 36101-0197
Telephone No.: (334) 223-7280
Facsimile No.: (334) 223-7418
E-mail: [email protected]
/s/ Melissa Handrigan

MICHAEL D. GRANSTON
TRACY L. HILMER
MELISSA R. HANDRIGAN
Attorneys, Civil Division
Commercial Litigation Branch
Post Office Box 261
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Email: [email protected]
Dated: January 22, 2014
25

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

ex rel., Blake Percival., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:
) 2:11-cv-527-WKW
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, )
LLC )
)
)
) (TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED)
)
Defendant. )
)
(PROPOSED) AMENDED QUI TAM COMPLAINT
COME NOW Blake Percival, Relator, by and through undersigned counsel,
before this Honorable Court on behalf of himself and the United States of America, its
departments and agencies, and bring this action against Defendants U.S. Investigations
Services, LLC, a subsidiary of Altegrity, Inc., for money damages and civil penalties
arising out of Defendant’s violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, which
violations are described hereinafter with particularity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction is conferred pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.A. §§
3730(b)(1) and 3732 in as much as this action seeks remedies on behalf of the United
States for violations of 31 U.S.C.A. § 3729 by Defendant.
Page 1 of 15
2. Venue is proper pursuant to 31 U.S.C.A §3732(a) in that Defendant USIS
is a Limited Liability Company that transacts business within this judicial district.
PARTIES
3. Relator Blake Percival acting on behalf of the United States, brings this
civil action under the Qui Tam provisions of the False Claims Act, as amended in 1986.
4. Relator Blake Percival is a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the State of Alabama.
5. Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (hereinafter “USIS”) is a
limited liability company organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia.
BACKGROUND
6. Relator Blake Percival started working for USIS in 2001 as a Field
Investigator in Montgomery, AL.
7. In July of 2005, Percival became Team Leader for the Montgomery, AL
area.
8. In January of 2007, Percival was promoted to Workload Leader for the
Birmingham District. This district encompasses the vast majority of the state of Alabama.
9. Subsequently, Percival was promoted to Director of Fieldwork Services in
January of 2011.
10. USIS’s main client is the United States Office of Personnel Management
or “OPM.” OPM is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
11. Pursuant to applicable contractual standards and specifications and the
standard operating procedures required by their Government contracts, Defendant USIS
Page 2 of 15
is required to conduct background investigations of all applicants or “Subjects” for
federal positions.
12. OPM receives requests from governmental agencies to do investigations
on Subjects applying for jobs with those agencies. OPM then sends the information
about the applicants to USIS to carry out those investigations.
13. USIS has extensive reach across the United States with 2,600 federally
approved Field Investigators that work in all 50 states, primarily from their respective
homes.
14. USIS opens a “Case” on every Subject assigned to them by OPM that
needs a background check. Cases may consist of one or more Report(s) of Investigation
(ROI), which must be individually completed by an assigned Field Investigator.
15. The number of investigations and Field Investigators involved will depend
on the number of locations that the applicant has lived in collectively over a five year
span and on the nature and scope of investigation required.
16. For example, if a Subject lived in Montgomery, Alabama for 10 years,
Mobile for 5 years and Birmingham for 7 years, a USIS Field Investigator from each
location (Montgomery, Mobile, and Birmingham) investigates the Subject’s background
for the corresponding time period that the Subject lived in that location. All of the ROIs
done by each Field Investigator for a given Subject combine to make the Case for that
Subject.
17. The ROIs, consists of an interview of the Subject and people that know
him, a criminal record check, and an investigation of any area in which the Subject has
lived.
Page 3 of 15
18. In accordance with USIS’s contract with the government, the Field
Investigators are required to carry out complete and adequate investigations.
19. The Investigators upload the completed ROIs into OPM’s Windows based
computer system called PIPSR where the information is re-coded by PIPSR to OPM’s
DOS based computer system called PIPS.
20. PIPS then holds the ROIs in the system until an USIS employee titled a
Workload Leader uploads the ROIs to a USIS computer program called DART, which
compiles all ROIs on a particular Subject into that person’s Case to be reviewed by a
Reviewer.
21. Every Case compiled by USIS on a Subject must receive a quality review
by a Reviewer and said review must be “Completed or Field Finished” by a specific date.
Once the Case, with all of its ROIs, is deemed “Field Finished” or “Complete,” it is then
submitted to OPM.
22. USIS submits them to OPM for the compensation of approximately
$1,900 per report submitted before the next-to-last day of the month and only 75% of that
amount per report for all reports submitted after the next-to-last day of the month.
23. The completion and submission dates established for each ROI and Case
is set by the Director of Master Schedule Production Control (MSPC), Ed Hahn.
24. Ed Hahn’s office and MSPC headquarters are located in Atlanta, Georgia.
Hahn and MSPC assign all deadlines for both the Field Investigators and Reviewers.
Hahn and MSPC also designed and maintain a software program in Atlanta, Georgia
called Blue Zone that plays an essential role in providing Completed Cases to OPM.
Page 4 of 15
25. USIS also uses the Blue Zone program to assist DART in the removal of
the Cases from PIPS. Blue Zone removes and “scrapes” the information in the ROIs
within each Case and highlights certain key terms and codes to assist Reviewers in
spotting that pertinent information.
FACTS
26. On or about January 9, 2011, Blake Percival was promoted to the position
of Director of Fieldwork Services, a position that oversees the work of 350 Reviewers,
who review all the ROIs of each case for completeness and thoroughness before
submitting them to OPM.
27. In January of 2011, at the Field Investigation Services Department,
Percival met with the subordinates who managed the Reviewers.
28. Each of the managers told Percival that his predecessor, David Drews
engaged in a practice referred to as “Dumping.”
29. Dumping is the releasing of Cases to OPM that were represented as Field
Finished that were not reviewed by a Reviewer and/or had not been investigated at all.
30. Dumping is a process spearheaded by Robert Calamia, Vice President of
Field Operations at USIS, and Ed Hahn, the Director of MSPC at USIS. At the direction
of Calamia, Hahn sets the investigative schedules that inform Field Investigators what
day of the month their ROI’s are to be submitted for review via PIPSR.
31. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. operations, Hahn
adjusted the production deadlines for the Field Investigators, pushing the deadlines
forward, and requiring Field Investigators to submit a large number of ROIs in a short
amount of time in order to meet the revenue goals that Hahn had forecasted.
Page 5 of 15
32. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. operations, the
Field Investigators were forced to submit large numbers of ROI’s in order to meet the
deadlines. The numbers of ROIs due were so large that Field Investigators failed to
thoroughly investigate each of their files before submitting them. This led to Field
Investigators turning in ROIs that were inaccurate.
33. At the end of every month in the year 2010, throughout its U.S.
operations, however, due to the large amount of ROIs being sent in by the Field
Investigators, Calamia and Drews dumped the Cases in order to release them to OPM
before the next-to-last day of each month.
34. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. operations,
Dumping was accomplished through the use of the Blue Zone program. Despite the
programs alleged intended use, Ed Hahn revealed that the program could be used to
quickly assign Reviewer numbers to the numerous files so they could be passed off to
OPM as having been reviewed.
35. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. Operations,
Drews engaged in dumping with complete disregard for whether or not the ROIs
submitted were the result of a proper investigation. Further, no review of the ROIs by a
USIS Reviewer ever occurred during the dumping process.
36. The forgoing actions violated the contract between USIS and OPM
because they caused the Field Investigators to perform incomplete and inaccurate
investigations, and USIS knowingly submitted Cases to OPM for payment that they knew
had not been reviewed by a USIS Reviewer as required by the contract.
Page 6 of 15
37. In addition, USIS’s actions violated the contract between USIS and OPM
because USIS used Blue Zone software in a manner specifically prohibited by the
government agreement. Although the government allowed USIS to use Blue Zone to
scrape information, Blue Zone was not to be used as a substitute for a human Reviewer.
38. This made USIS’s use of Blue Zone fraudulent in nature as it is being used
to deceive OPM into the belief that they are receiving quality reviews of the ROIs in each
Case for every subject.
39. On or about February 11, 2011, Percival was contacted by Calamia from
Calamia’s office in El Paso, TX, who told Percival to dump the Cases assigned by DART
for that month so that USIS could collect full compensation on the contract for February
2011.
40. Rather than comply with Calamia’s instructions, Percival encouraged the
Reviewers to work later in order to meet revenue goals so as to avoid dumping.
41. At or around the end of February 2011, Percival’s reviewers were still
unable to complete the reviews of all Cases for the month of February 2011.
42. As a result, USIS did not receive maximum compensation for the cases
that were not Field Finished by the second-to-last day of February 2011.
43. In March 2011, Percival was again contacted by Calamia from Calamia’s
office in El Paso and directed to dump the files that were assigned by DART for March
2011.
44. In March 2011, throughout its U.S. operations, Percival refused to dump
and once again encouraged the Reviewers to work late to meet revenue goals. However
Percival’s department was unable to submit all of the Cases as Field Finished before the
Page 7 of 15
second-to-last day of March 2011 causing USIS to miss receiving its maximum profits.
45. On or about April 14, 2011, the management staff gathered together for
the USIS Third Quarter meeting; Percival was approached by Calamia who ordered him
to consult with Drews to learn how to dump.
46. From April 2011 to May 2011, Percival made no effort to meet with
Drews to learn how to dump nor did Percival at any time engage in the practice of
dumping.
47. On or about June 3, 2011, Percival’s employment was terminated as a
result of his refusing to order the dumping of Cases to OPM that were not field finished.
48. The dumpings of each case constituted false claims submitted to the
government for payment by USIS. The dumpings described herein (i.e. the submitted
false claims) for the period of January 2010 through January 2011, alone, constitute
multimillion dollar payments by the United States Government to USIS.
COUNT I
(Failure to Review)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (1) (A)
49. Plaintiff realleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully
herein.
50. Defendant USIS was contractually obligated to review each case compiled
of ROIs, that were Completed or Field Finished and released to the government.
51. However, Defendant USIS by and through its officers, agents, and
employees, engaged in the dumping of cases during the time frame above and/or during
the statute of limitations applicable to this claim, and failed to review cases that were
submitted to the government for payment.
Page 8 of 15
52. By reason of the violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a) (1) (A), Defendant has
knowingly or recklessly damaged the United States Government in an amount to be
determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, the Relator, on behalf of himself and the United Sates
Government, prays:
(a) That this Court enter judgment against Defendants in an amount
equal to three times the amount of damages the United States
Government has sustained because of Defendants’ actions, plus a
civil penalty of $5,500-$11,000 for each action in violation of 31
U.S.C. §3729, and the cost of this action, with interest, including
the cost to the United States Government for its expenses related to
this action;
(b) That the Relator be awarded all costs incurred, including
reasonable attorney’s fees;
(c) That in the event that the United States Government proceeds with
this action, the Relator be awarded an amount for bringing this
action of at least 15%, but not more than 25%, of the proceeds of
the action or settlement of the claims;
(d) That in the event that the United States Government does not
proceed with this action, the Relator be awarded an amount that the
Court decides is reasonable for collecting the civil penalty and
damages, which shall be no less than 25% nor more than 30% of
the proceeds of the action or settlement;
Page 9 of 15
(e) That the Relator be awarded prejudgment interest;
(f) That a trial by jury be held on all issues;
(g) That the United States Government and the Relator receive all,
both at law and at equity, to which they may reasonably be
entitled.
COUNT II
(Inadequate Investigation)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) (1) (A)
herein.
54. Defendant USIS was contractually obligated to conduct a complete and
adequate investigation of each ROI before submitting them to Reviewers.
55. In order to meet revenue goals, however, Defendant greatly accelerated
the dates by which the ROIs were to be turned in to the Reviewers.
56. Defendant, by and through their officers, agents, and/or employees, failed
to provide accurate and complete investigations prior to Cases being submitted to the
government.
Government, prays:
(h) That this Court enter judgment against Defendants in an amount
Page 10 of 15
this action;
(i) That the Relator be awarded all costs incurred, including
(j) That in the event that the United States Government proceeds with
(k) That in the event that the United States Government does not
(l) That the Relator be awarded prejudgment interest;
(m) That a trial by jury be held on all issues;
(n) That the United States Government and the Relator receive all,
entitled.
Page 11 of 15
COUNT III
(False Record/False Statement)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (1) (B)
herein.
59. Defendant represented to OPM that the use of the Blue Zone software
would be limited to scraping information out of PIPS for the Reviewers.
60. Defendant USIS knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, a
false record or statement material to a fraudulent claim given Blue Zone was not only
used to scrape info, but was also used to submit Cases to OPM under the false pretense
that the Cases had been complete and accurately and properly reviewed prior to
submission to the United States Government.
61. By reason of the violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a) (1) (B), Defendant has
Government, prays:
(o) That this Court enter judgment against Defendants in an amount
Page 12 of 15
this action;
(p) That the Relator be awarded all costs incurred, including
(q) That in the event that the United States Government proceeds with
(r) That in the event that the United States Government does not
(s) That the Relator be awarded prejudgment interest;
(t) That a trial by jury be held on all issues;
(u) That the United States Government and the Relator receive all,
entitled.
COUNT IV
(Retaliation)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h)
herein.
63. Relator Percival was discharged, harassed and/or discriminated against in
his termination by Defendant USIS, by and through its officers, contractors, agents, and
Page 13 of 15
employees because of lawful acts done by Relator Percival on behalf of USIS and/or in
the furtherance of an action under the False Claims Act including, but not limited to,
Relator Percival’s efforts to stop violations of the False Claims Act.
64. By reason of the violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h), Defendant has
WHEREFORE, the Relator prays for the following relief:
(a) That the Relator be awarded all compensatory and punitive damages,
including personal injury damages for mental anguish, pain and
suffering and/or loss of reputation, to which he is entitled pursuant to
31 U.S.C. §3730(h)(2) and other applicable law;
(b) That the Relator be awarded 2 times the amount of back pay;
(c) That the Relator be awarded compensation for special damages
sustained as a result of the discrimination;
(d) That the Relator be awarded interest on the back pay;
(e) That the Relator be awarded all litigation costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees incurred as provided pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730(h)
and other applicable law;
(f) That Relator receives all relief, both at law and at equity, to which he
may reasonably be entitled.
s/ Larry A. Golston, Jr. _________

Larry A. Golston, Jr. (GOL029)
Attorney for Plaintiff
Page 14 of 15
OF COUNSEL:
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,

PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Post Office Box 4160
Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160
(334) 269-2343
(334) 954-7555 FAX
JURY DEMAND
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES OF

THIS CAUSE.

Page 15 of 15

NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 2:11-cv-527-WKW
LLC )
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and request this
Honorable Court to allow him to amend his complaint alleging, among other things, a
claim of relation in violation of 31 U.S.C. §3730 (h) and to correct the citation to the
aforementioned statute in the original complaint. As grounds for this Motion, the Plaintiff
states the following:
1. On or about July 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint alleging
violations of the False Claims Act pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)(A), 3729
(a)(1)(B) and 3730 (h).
2. On or about October 24, 2013 the United States Government filed a
Notice of Intervention regarding the False Claims Act lawsuit referenced above.
3. On or about October 29, 2013, this Honorable Court entered an Order
(Doc. #25) requiring, in pertinent part, the Government to serve its Complaint along with
the Court’s October 29th Order on the Defendant on or before January 22, 2014.
4. On or about January 22, 2014, the Government filed its Complaint (Doc. #
26), wherein the Government re-alleged violations of the False Claims Act by the
Defendant that were alleged in Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. Specifically, the
Government re-alleged violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)(A) and 3729 (a)(1)(B).
5. However, because the Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. §3730 (h) are personal to the Plaintiff himself, the Government does not have an
interest in said claims. Thus, the Government’s complaint does not re-allege retaliation
claims being litigated under §3730 (h).
6. The Original Complaint’s citation to Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 31
U.S.C. §3730 (h) recites the statute’s language in that section prior to its amendment in
2009 with the passage of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.
111-21, 123 Stat. 1617 (2009) and/or omitted language from the statutory section.
Consequently, Plaintiff hereby moves this Honorable Court to allow him to clarify his
Complaint and to bring his allegations in conformity with the evidence, including
clarifying the statutory language relating to 31 U.S.C. §3730 (h) and to serve his
Amended Complaint on the Defendant.1
7. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent
part: “A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time
1
To the extent that the Government’s Complaint, filed after its Notice of Intervention, adopts fully
Plaintiff’s claims in his original Complaint alleging violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)(A) and 3729
(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff defers the prosecution and/or litigation of said claims to the Government. Nonetheless,
Plaintiff does intend to prosecute and/or litigate his claims pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730 (h) by and through
the undersigned Counsel.
before a responsive pleading is served … Otherwise a party may amend the party’s
pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall
be freely given when justice so requires.” In the instant case, the Plaintiff does not seek
to add any additional claims. Rather, Plaintiff is only seeking to clarify his Complaint
and to bring his allegations in conformity with the evidence.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that
this Court allow him to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) and (b), Fed.Civ.P.,
to amend the information described above.2
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of January, 2014.

OF COUNSEL:

Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 30, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and I hereby sent a copy to the
Defendant as listed below via US Postal Service, postage prepaid to the following:

2
See Exhibit A, “Proposed Amended Complaint.”

NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
)
) 2:11-cv-527-WKW
LLC )
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and request this
Honorable Court to allow him to amend his complaint alleging, among other things, a
claim of relation in violation of 31 U.S.C. §3730 (h) and to correct the citation to the
aforementioned statute in the original complaint. As grounds for this Motion, the Plaintiff
states the following:
1. On or about July 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint alleging
violations of the False Claims Act pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)(A), 3729
(a)(1)(B) and 3730 (h).
2. On or about October 24, 2013 the United States Government filed a
Notice of Intervention regarding the False Claims Act lawsuit referenced above.
3. On or about October 29, 2013, this Honorable Court entered an Order
(Doc. #25) requiring, in pertinent part, the Government to serve its Complaint along with
the Court’s October 29th Order on the Defendant on or before January 22, 2014.
4. On or about January 22, 2014, the Government filed its Complaint (Doc. #
26), wherein the Government re-alleged violations of the False Claims Act by the
Defendant that were alleged in Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. Specifically, the
Government re-alleged violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)(A) and 3729 (a)(1)(B).
5. However, because the Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. §3730 (h) are personal to the Plaintiff himself, the Government does not have an
interest in said claims. Thus, the Government’s complaint does not re-allege retaliation
claims being litigated under §3730 (h).
6. The Original Complaint’s citation to Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 31
U.S.C. §3730 (h) recites the statute’s language in that section prior to its amendment in
2009 with the passage of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.
111-21, 123 Stat. 1617 (2009) and/or omitted language from the statutory section.
Consequently, Plaintiff hereby moves this Honorable Court to allow him to clarify his
Complaint and to bring his allegations in conformity with the evidence, including
clarifying the statutory language relating to 31 U.S.C. §3730 (h) and to serve his
Amended Complaint on the Defendant.1
7. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent
part: “A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time
1
To the extent that the Government’s Complaint, filed after its Notice of Intervention, adopts fully
Plaintiff’s claims in his original Complaint alleging violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)(A) and 3729
(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff defers the prosecution and/or litigation of said claims to the Government. Nonetheless,
Plaintiff does intend to prosecute and/or litigate his claims pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730 (h) by and through
the undersigned Counsel.
before a responsive pleading is served … Otherwise a party may amend the party’s
pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall
be freely given when justice so requires.” In the instant case, the Plaintiff does not seek
to add any additional claims. Rather, Plaintiff is only seeking to clarify his Complaint
and to bring his allegations in conformity with the evidence.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that
this Court allow him to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) and (b), Fed.Civ.P.,
to amend the information described above.2
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of January, 2014.

OF COUNSEL:

Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
I hereby certify that on January 30, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and I hereby sent a copy to the
Defendant as listed below via US Postal Service, postage prepaid to the following:

2
See Exhibit A, “Proposed Amended Complaint.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
POST OFFICE BOX 711
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711
DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600
January 31, 2014
NOTICE OF CORRECTION
From: Clerk’s Office
Case Style: United States of America ex rel Blake Percival v U.S. Investigations Services, Inc.
Case Number: 2:11-cv-00527-WKW
Document:#28 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint
Notice of Correction is being filed this date to advise that the referenced document was filed on
1/30/2014 and did not have a correct motion attached this document is not filed under seal.
The corrected pdf is attached to this notice.


NORTHERN DIVISION

ex rel., BLAKE PERCIVAL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-527-WKW
)
U.S. INVESTIGATION SERVICES, )
LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
(Doc. # 28), it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. On or before
February 7, 2014, Plaintiff shall file a duplicate of the proposed Amended Qui
Tam Complaint that is attached to the motion.
DONE this 31st day of January, 2014.


NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:
) 2:11-cv-527-WKW
LLC )
)
)
) (TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED)
)
Defendant. )
)
AMENDED QUI TAM COMPLAINT
COME NOW Blake Percival, Relator, by and through undersigned counsel,
before this Honorable Court on behalf of himself and the United States of America, its
departments and agencies, and bring this action against Defendants U.S. Investigations
Services, LLC, a subsidiary of Altegrity, Inc., for money damages and civil penalties
arising out of Defendant’s violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, which
violations are described hereinafter with particularity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction is conferred pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.A. §§
3730(b)(1) and 3732 in as much as this action seeks remedies on behalf of the United
States for violations of 31 U.S.C.A. § 3729 by Defendant.
2. Venue is proper pursuant to 31 U.S.C.A §3732(a) in that Defendant USIS
Page 1 of 15
is a Limited Liability Company that transacts business within this judicial district.
PARTIES
3. Relator Blake Percival acting on behalf of the United States, brings this
civil action under the Qui Tam provisions of the False Claims Act, as amended in 1986.
4. Relator Blake Percival is a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the State of Alabama.
5. Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (hereinafter “USIS”) is a
limited liability company organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia.
BACKGROUND
6. Relator Blake Percival started working for USIS in 2001 as a Field
Investigator in Montgomery, AL.
7. In July of 2005, Percival became Team Leader for the Montgomery, AL
area.
8. In January of 2007, Percival was promoted to Workload Leader for the
Birmingham District. This district encompasses the vast majority of the state of Alabama.
9. Subsequently, Percival was promoted to Director of Fieldwork Services in
January of 2011.
10. USIS’s main client is the United States Office of Personnel Management
or “OPM.” OPM is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
11. Pursuant to applicable contractual standards and specifications and the
standard operating procedures required by their Government contracts, Defendant USIS
is required to conduct background investigations of all applicants or “Subjects” for
Page 2 of 15
federal positions.
12. OPM receives requests from governmental agencies to do investigations
on Subjects applying for jobs with those agencies. OPM then sends the information
about the applicants to USIS to carry out those investigations.
13. USIS has extensive reach across the United States with 2,600 federally
approved Field Investigators that work in all 50 states, primarily from their respective
homes.
14. USIS opens a “Case” on every Subject assigned to them by OPM that
needs a background check. Cases may consist of one or more Report(s) of Investigation
(ROI), which must be individually completed by an assigned Field Investigator.
15. The number of investigations and Field Investigators involved will depend
on the number of locations that the applicant has lived in collectively over a five year
span and on the nature and scope of investigation required.
16. For example, if a Subject lived in Montgomery, Alabama for 10 years,
Mobile for 5 years and Birmingham for 7 years, a USIS Field Investigator from each
location (Montgomery, Mobile, and Birmingham) investigates the Subject’s background
for the corresponding time period that the Subject lived in that location. All of the ROIs
done by each Field Investigator for a given Subject combine to make the Case for that
Subject.
17. The ROIs, consists of an interview of the Subject and people that know
him, a criminal record check, and an investigation of any area in which the Subject has
lived.
Page 3 of 15
18. In accordance with USIS’s contract with the government, the Field
Investigators are required to carry out complete and adequate investigations.
19. The Investigators upload the completed ROIs into OPM’s Windows based
computer system called PIPSR where the information is re-coded by PIPSR to OPM’s
DOS based computer system called PIPS.
20. PIPS then holds the ROIs in the system until an USIS employee titled a
Workload Leader uploads the ROIs to a USIS computer program called DART, which
compiles all ROIs on a particular Subject into that person’s Case to be reviewed by a
Reviewer.
21. Every Case compiled by USIS on a Subject must receive a quality review
by a Reviewer and said review must be “Completed or Field Finished” by a specific date.
Once the Case, with all of its ROIs, is deemed “Field Finished” or “Complete,” it is then
submitted to OPM.
22. USIS submits them to OPM for the compensation of approximately
$1,900 per report submitted before the next-to-last day of the month and only 75% of that
amount per report for all reports submitted after the next-to-last day of the month.
23. The completion and submission dates established for each ROI and Case
is set by the Director of Master Schedule Production Control (MSPC), Ed Hahn.
24. Ed Hahn’s office and MSPC headquarters are located in Atlanta, Georgia.
Hahn and MSPC assign all deadlines for both the Field Investigators and Reviewers.
Hahn and MSPC also designed and maintain a software program in Atlanta, Georgia
called Blue Zone that plays an essential role in providing Completed Cases to OPM.
Page 4 of 15
25. USIS also uses the Blue Zone program to assist DART in the removal of
the Cases from PIPS. Blue Zone removes and “scrapes” the information in the ROIs
within each Case and highlights certain key terms and codes to assist Reviewers in
spotting that pertinent information.
FACTS
26. On or about January 9, 2011, Blake Percival was promoted to the position
of Director of Fieldwork Services, a position that oversees the work of 350 Reviewers,
who review all the ROIs of each case for completeness and thoroughness before
submitting them to OPM.
27. In January of 2011, at the Field Investigation Services Department,
Percival met with the subordinates who managed the Reviewers.
28. Each of the managers told Percival that his predecessor, David Drews
engaged in a practice referred to as “Dumping.”
29. Dumping is the releasing of Cases to OPM that were represented as Field
Finished that were not reviewed by a Reviewer and/or had not been investigated at all.
30. Dumping is a process spearheaded by Robert Calamia, Vice President of
Field Operations at USIS, and Ed Hahn, the Director of MSPC at USIS. At the direction
of Calamia, Hahn sets the investigative schedules that inform Field Investigators what
day of the month their ROI’s are to be submitted for review via PIPSR.
31. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. operations, Hahn
adjusted the production deadlines for the Field Investigators, pushing the deadlines
forward, and requiring Field Investigators to submit a large number of ROIs in a short
amount of time in order to meet the revenue goals that Hahn had forecasted.
Page 5 of 15
32. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. operations, the
Field Investigators were forced to submit large numbers of ROI’s in order to meet the
deadlines. The numbers of ROIs due were so large that Field Investigators failed to
thoroughly investigate each of their files before submitting them. This led to Field
Investigators turning in ROIs that were inaccurate.
33. At the end of every month in the year 2010, throughout its U.S.
operations, however, due to the large amount of ROIs being sent in by the Field
Investigators, Calamia and Drews dumped the Cases in order to release them to OPM
before the next-to-last day of each month.
34. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. operations,
Dumping was accomplished through the use of the Blue Zone program. Despite the
programs alleged intended use, Ed Hahn revealed that the program could be used to
quickly assign Reviewer numbers to the numerous files so they could be passed off to
OPM as having been reviewed.
35. From January 2010 to January 2011, throughout its U.S. Operations,
Drews engaged in dumping with complete disregard for whether or not the ROIs
submitted were the result of a proper investigation. Further, no review of the ROIs by a
USIS Reviewer ever occurred during the dumping process.
36. The forgoing actions violated the contract between USIS and OPM
because they caused the Field Investigators to perform incomplete and inaccurate
investigations, and USIS knowingly submitted Cases to OPM for payment that they knew
had not been reviewed by a USIS Reviewer as required by the contract.
Page 6 of 15
37. In addition, USIS’s actions violated the contract between USIS and OPM
because USIS used Blue Zone software in a manner specifically prohibited by the
government agreement. Although the government allowed USIS to use Blue Zone to
scrape information, Blue Zone was not to be used as a substitute for a human Reviewer.
38. This made USIS’s use of Blue Zone fraudulent in nature as it is being used
to deceive OPM into the belief that they are receiving quality reviews of the ROIs in each
Case for every subject.
39. On or about February 11, 2011, Percival was contacted by Calamia from
Calamia’s office in El Paso, TX, who told Percival to dump the Cases assigned by DART
for that month so that USIS could collect full compensation on the contract for February
2011.
40. Rather than comply with Calamia’s instructions, Percival encouraged the
Reviewers to work later in order to meet revenue goals so as to avoid dumping.
41. At or around the end of February 2011, Percival’s reviewers were still
unable to complete the reviews of all Cases for the month of February 2011.
42. As a result, USIS did not receive maximum compensation for the cases
that were not Field Finished by the second-to-last day of February 2011.
43. In March 2011, Percival was again contacted by Calamia from Calamia’s
office in El Paso and directed to dump the files that were assigned by DART for March
2011.
44. In March 2011, throughout its U.S. operations, Percival refused to dump
and once again encouraged the Reviewers to work late to meet revenue goals. However
Percival’s department was unable to submit all of the Cases as Field Finished before the
Page 7 of 15
second-to-last day of March 2011 causing USIS to miss receiving its maximum profits.
45. On or about April 14, 2011, the management staff gathered together for
the USIS Third Quarter meeting; Percival was approached by Calamia who ordered him
to consult with Drews to learn how to dump.
46. From April 2011 to May 2011, Percival made no effort to meet with
Drews to learn how to dump nor did Percival at any time engage in the practice of
dumping.
47. On or about June 3, 2011, Percival’s employment was terminated as a
result of his refusing to order the dumping of Cases to OPM that were not field finished.
48. The dumpings of each case constituted false claims submitted to the
government for payment by USIS. The dumpings described herein (i.e. the submitted
false claims) for the period of January 2010 through January 2011, alone, constitute
multimillion dollar payments by the United States Government to USIS.
COUNT I
(Failure to Review)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (1) (A)
herein.
50. Defendant USIS was contractually obligated to review each case compiled
of ROIs, that were Completed or Field Finished and released to the government.
51. However, Defendant USIS by and through its officers, agents, and
employees, engaged in the dumping of cases during the time frame above and/or during
the statute of limitations applicable to this claim, and failed to review cases that were
submitted to the government for payment.
Page 8 of 15
Government, prays:
(a) That this Court enter judgment against Defendants in an amount
this action;
(b) That the Relator be awarded all costs incurred, including
(c) That in the event that the United States Government proceeds with
(d) That in the event that the United States Government does not
Page 9 of 15
(e) That the Relator be awarded prejudgment interest;
(f) That a trial by jury be held on all issues;
(g) That the United States Government and the Relator receive all,
entitled.
COUNT II
(Inadequate Investigation)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) (1) (A)
herein.
54. Defendant USIS was contractually obligated to conduct a complete and
adequate investigation of each ROI before submitting them to Reviewers.
55. In order to meet revenue goals, however, Defendant greatly accelerated
the dates by which the ROIs were to be turned in to the Reviewers.
56. Defendant, by and through their officers, agents, and/or employees, failed
to provide accurate and complete investigations prior to Cases being submitted to the
government.
Government, prays:
(h) That this Court enter judgment against Defendants in an amount
Page 10 of 15
this action;
(i) That the Relator be awarded all costs incurred, including
(j) That in the event that the United States Government proceeds with
(k) That in the event that the United States Government does not
(l) That the Relator be awarded prejudgment interest;
(m) That a trial by jury be held on all issues;
(n) That the United States Government and the Relator receive all,
entitled.
Page 11 of 15
COUNT III
(False Record/False Statement)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (1) (B)
herein.
59. Defendant represented to OPM that the use of the Blue Zone software
would be limited to scraping information out of PIPS for the Reviewers.
60. Defendant USIS knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, a
false record or statement material to a fraudulent claim given Blue Zone was not only
used to scrape info, but was also used to submit Cases to OPM under the false pretense
that the Cases had been complete and accurately and properly reviewed prior to
submission to the United States Government.
61. By reason of the violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a) (1) (B), Defendant has
Government, prays:
(o) That this Court enter judgment against Defendants in an amount
Page 12 of 15
this action;
(p) That the Relator be awarded all costs incurred, including
(q) That in the event that the United States Government proceeds with
(r) That in the event that the United States Government does not
(s) That the Relator be awarded prejudgment interest;
(t) That a trial by jury be held on all issues;
(u) That the United States Government and the Relator receive all,
entitled.
COUNT IV
(Retaliation)
Violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h)
herein.
63. Relator Percival was discharged, harassed and/or discriminated against in
his termination by Defendant USIS, by and through its officers, contractors, agents, and
Page 13 of 15
employees because of lawful acts done by Relator Percival on behalf of USIS and/or in
the furtherance of an action under the False Claims Act including, but not limited to,
Relator Percival’s efforts to stop violations of the False Claims Act.
64. By reason of the violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h), Defendant has
WHEREFORE, the Relator prays for the following relief:
(a) That the Relator be awarded all compensatory and punitive damages,
including personal injury damages for mental anguish, pain and
suffering and/or loss of reputation, to which he is entitled pursuant to
31 U.S.C. §3730(h)(2) and other applicable law;
(b) That the Relator be awarded 2 times the amount of back pay;
(c) That the Relator be awarded compensation for special damages
sustained as a result of the discrimination;
(d) That the Relator be awarded interest on the back pay;
(e) That the Relator be awarded all litigation costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees incurred as provided pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730(h)
and other applicable law;
(f) That Relator receives all relief, both at law and at equity, to which he
may reasonably be entitled.

Page 14 of 15
OF COUNSEL:

272 Commerce Street
(334) 269-2343
(334) 954-7555 FAX
JURY DEMAND
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES OF

THIS CAUSE.

Page 15 of 15

NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., }

BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
vs. } Case No.: 2:11-CV-527-WKW
}
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, LLC, }
}
Defendant. }
CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 7.1, Defendant U.S.
Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”) submits the following disclosure:
1. USIS provides information and security services to government agencies and
commercial enterprises.
2. USIS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altegrity, Inc. Aside from Altegrity, Inc.,
the other entities reportable pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 are Altegrity Acquisition Corp. and
Altegrity Holding Corp.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: February 25, 2014 /s/ Jackson R. Sharman III

One of the Attorneys for USIS
OF COUNSEL:
Jackson R. Sharman III
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
1
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following counsel of
record through this Court’s electronic filing system on this 25th day of February, 2014:
Jere Locke Beasley

Larry Apaul Golston Jr.
Wilson Daniel Miles III
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
P.O. Box 4160
Montgomery, Alabama 36103
James Joseph DuBois

U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
Michael David Granston
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW
/s/ Jackson R. Sharman III

Of Counsel
2

NORTHERN DIVISION

BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
}
Defendant. }
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO ANSWER OR

OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”) respectfully requests that this
Court extend the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint, [Doc.
#31], by twenty-one (21) days and, therefore, set the responsive pleading deadline at March 24,
2014. In further support, USIS states as follows:
1. On July 1, 2011, Relator Blake Percival filed a Complaint pursuant to the False
Claims Act against USIS (“the Relator Complaint”). [Doc. #1]. On October 24, 2013, the
Government elected to intervene, and on October 29, 2013, this Court unsealed, among other
documents, the Relator Complaint. [Docs. #24, 25].
2. Following its election to intervene, on January 22, 2014, the Government filed its
Complaint (“the Intervenor Complaint”). [Doc. #26]. As to the Intervenor Complaint, USIS
waived service, and USIS’s responsive pleading deadline is March 24, 2014. [Doc. #27].
3. On February 5, 2014, Mr. Percival filed an Amended Complaint (“the Amended
Relator Complaint”). [Doc. #31]. On February 10, 2014, USIS was served with a copy of the
Amended Relator Complaint. [Doc. #33]. On that account, USIS’s deadline to respond to the
1
Amended Relator Complaint is March 3, 2014 (i.e., twenty-one days before its deadline to
respond to the Intervenor Complaint). [Doc. #33].
4. The Intervenor Complaint and the Amended Relator Complaint assert claims
under the False Claims Act arising from alleged “dumping” by USIS – that is, the alleged
“releasing of Cases to OPM that were represented as Field Finished that were not reviewed by a
Reviewer and/or had not been investigated at all.” [Doc. #31 ¶ 29]; see also [Doc. #26 ¶ 42]
[“Specifically, USIS devised a practice referred to internally as ‘dumping’ or ‘flushing,’ which
involved releasing cases to OPM and representing them as complete when, in fact, not all ROIs
comprising those cases had received a quality review as required by Fieldwork Contracts.”].
5. Aside from the breach-of-contract claim in the Intervenor Complaint and the
retaliation claim in the Amended Relator Complaint, the claims in each Complaint are generally
the same and rest on the same factual allegations. [Docs. #26, 31].
6. USIS needs additional time to prepare its response to the Amended Relator
Complaint. Additionally, by extending the responsive pleading deadline by twenty-one days,
USIS’s deadline to respond to the Amended Relator Complaint will coincide with its deadline to
respond to the Intervenor Complaint, which will permit USIS to address the overlapping issues
between the Complaints at the same time.
7. This request is made in good faith and without any intention of unduly delaying
these proceedings. The undersigned have conferred with counsel for Mr. Blake and counsel for
the Government, who have no objection this request. As an unopposed request, no party will be
prejudiced by this extension.
Accordingly, USIS respectfully requests that this Court set its deadline to answer or
otherwise respond to the Amended Relator Complaint at March 24, 2014.
2
Dated: February 25, 2014 /s/ Jackson R. Sharman III

OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
3
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW

Of Counsel
4

NORTHERN DIVISION

BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
}
Defendant. }
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Jeffrey P. Doss hereby enters an appearance as additional counsel of record on behalf of
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC.
Dated: February 25, 2014 /s/ Jeffrey P. Doss

One of the Attorneys for
U.S. Investigations Services, LLC
OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
1
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW
/s/ Jeffrey P. Doss

Of Counsel
2

NORTHERN DIVISION

BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
}
Defendant. }

OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE AMENDED RELATOR COMPLAINT AND THE
INTERVENOR COMPLAINT
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”) respectfully requests that this
Court extend the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Intervenor Complaint, [Doc.
#26], and the Amended Relator Complaint, [Doc. #31], by thirty (30) days and, therefore, set the
responsive pleading deadline at April 23, 2014. In further support, USIS states as follows:
1. On July 1, 2011, Relator Blake Percival filed a Complaint pursuant to the False
Claims Act against USIS (“the Relator Complaint”). [Doc. #1]. On October 24, 2013, the
Government elected to intervene, and on October 29, 2013, this Court unsealed, among other
documents, the Relator Complaint. [Docs. #24, 25]. Following its election to intervene, on
January 22, 2014, the Government filed its Complaint (“the Intervenor Complaint”). [Doc. #26].
On February 5, 2014, Mr. Percival filed an Amended Complaint (“the Amended Relator
Complaint”). [Doc. #31].
2. The Intervenor Complaint and the Amended Relator Complaint assert claims
under the False Claims Act arising from alleged “dumping” by USIS – that is, the alleged
“releasing of Cases to OPM that were represented as Field Finished that were not reviewed by a
1
Reviewer and/or had not been investigated at all.” [Doc. #31 ¶ 29]; see also [Doc. #26 ¶ 42]
[“Specifically, USIS devised a practice referred to internally as ‘dumping’ or ‘flushing,’ which
involved releasing cases to OPM and representing them as complete when, in fact, not all ROIs
comprising those cases had received a quality review as required by Fieldwork Contracts.”].
3. USIS needs additional time to prepare its response to the Intervenor Complaint
and the Amended Relator Complaint, both of which concern USIS’s long-term transactions with
the United States as well as complex legal considerations under the False Claims Act. In
particular, the Intervenor Complaint and the Amended Relator Complaint assert claims arising
out of contracts with the United States that span, at least, a four-year period of time. The
Government spent approximately two years investigating the claims in the Relator Complaint
before electing to intervene, [Docs. #4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22], and USIS
needs a short extension of time to develop its response.
4. This request is made in good faith and without any intention of unduly delaying
these proceedings. The undersigned have conferred with counsel for Mr. Blake and counsel for
the Government, and neither has any objection to this request. As an unopposed request, no
party will be prejudiced by this brief extension.
Accordingly, USIS requests that the Court set its deadline to answer or otherwise respond
to the Intervenor Complaint and the Amended Relator Complaint at April 23, 2014.
Dated: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 /s/ Jackson R. Sharman III

2
OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
Bruce J. Casino (pro hac vice application forthcoming)

[email protected]
Jonathan S. Aronie (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
[email protected]
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1300 I Street, NW, 11th Floor East
Telephone: (202) 218-0000
Facsimile: (202) 218-0020
3
record through this Court’s electronic filing system on this 18th day of March, 2014:
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW

Of Counsel
4
EXHIBIT A

NORTHERN DIVISION

BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
}
Defendant. }
MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(b), Jackson R. Sharman III, one of the attorneys for
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”), respectfully requests that the Court
allow Bruce J. Casino to appear pro hac vice as an attorney for USIS in this case. In further
support, the undersigned states as follows:
1. Mr. Casino is an attorney at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, 1300 I
Street, NW, 11th Floor East, Washington, D.C. 20005. Mr. Casino’s telephone number is (202)
218-0000, and his email address is [email protected].
2. Mr. Casino is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is the district in which Mr. Casino regularly
practices law. A certificate of good standing from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia is attached to this Motion as Exhibit A.
3. A check in the amount of $50.00, along with a file-stamped copy of this Motion,
is being submitted via overnight mail to the Clerk of Court contemporaneously with the filing of
this Motion.
1
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court allow Mr. Casino to be
admitted pro hac vice as counsel of record for USIS in this case.

OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
Bruce J. Casino (pro hac vice application pending)

[email protected]
Jonathan S. Aronie (pro hac vice application pending)
[email protected]
Telephone: (202) 218-0000
Facsimile: (202) 218-0020
2
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW

Of Counsel
3
EXHIBIT A

NORTHERN DIVISION

BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
}
Defendant. }
MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(b), Jackson R. Sharman III, one of the attorneys for
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”), respectfully requests that the Court
allow Jonathan S. Aronie to appear pro hac vice as an attorney for USIS in this case. In further
support, the undersigned states as follows:
1. Mr. Aronie is an attorney at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, 1300 I
Street, NW, 11th Floor East, Washington, D.C. 20005. Mr. Aronie’s telephone number is (202)
218-0000, and his email address is [email protected].
2. Mr. Aronie is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is the district in which Mr. Aronie regularly
practices law. A certificate of good standing from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia is attached to this Motion as Exhibit A.
3. A check in the amount of $50.00, along with a file-stamped copy of this Motion,
is being submitted via overnight mail to the Clerk of Court contemporaneously with the filing of
this Motion.
1
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court allow Mr. Aronie to be
admitted pro hac vice as counsel of record for USIS in this case.

OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
Bruce J. Casino (pro hac vice application pending)

[email protected]
Jonathan S. Aronie (pro hac vice application pending)
[email protected]
Telephone: (202) 218-0000
Facsimile: (202) 218-0020
2
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW

Of Counsel
3

NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-527-WKW
v. )
)
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, LLC.,)
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES’

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMES NOW Plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through Counsel, and
submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Transfer this action to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where many
of the witnesses reside and many of the relevant events took place. By contrast, the only
connection this lawsuit has with the Middle District of Alabama is the fact that the relator
currently resides here, and the Defendant does business nationwide. Essentially all the other
witnesses, all the evidence, and the location of the alleged fraud are outside of Alabama. A
transfer would therefore greatly serve the interests of justice and convenience of the witnesses
and parties.
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit is brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31
U.S.C. §§ 3730 et. seq. Defendant USIS is a company organized pursuant to the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia. (Docket No. 26, United
States’ Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 7). The relator who originally filed this lawsuit is a former
employee of USIS who currently resides in Alabama. (Compl. ¶ 6). The United States
intervened and served a Complaint on Defendant on January 23, 2014 that included both an FCA
claim and a breach of contract claim. (Compl. ¶ 1).
As the United States alleges in its Complaint, the United States Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) conducts background investigations for over one hundred federal agencies,
and it contracts with private companies such as Defendant to perform some of the fieldwork on
investigations. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-17). Defendant entered into fieldwork contracts with OPM
related to background investigations. (Compl. ¶ 17). Beginning in at least March 2008 and
continuing through at least September 2012, the United States alleges that Defendant devised and
executed a scheme to deliberately circumvent contractually required quality reviews of
completed background investigations in order to increase the company’s revenues and profits.
(Compl. ¶¶ 42-50). Specifically, Defendant devised a practice referred to internally as
“dumping” or “flushing,” which involved releasing cases to OPM and representing them as
complete when, in fact, not all the Reports of Investigation (“ROI”) comprising those cases had
received a quality review as required by Defendant’s contracts with OPM. (Compl. ¶¶ 42-60).
This “dumping” occurred at Defendant’s facility in Western Pennsylvania, and the false
representations were submitted for payment to OPM in Washington, D.C., causing OPM to
believe that the background investigations had gone through the quality review process required
by the contracts. (Compl. ¶ 45). Relying upon Defendant’s false representations, OPM
employees in the District of Columbia issued payments and bonuses to Defendant that it would
not otherwise have issued had OPM been aware that the background investigations had not gone
through the quality review process required by the contracts. (Compl. ¶¶ 61-63). The United
2
States contends that Defendant received millions of dollars that it otherwise would not have
received absent the fraud. (Compl. ¶ 63).
ARGUMENT
A district court in its discretion may transfer an action for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this
transfer provision is to “prevent the waste of time, energy and money, and to protect litigants,
witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” See Van Dusen v.
Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotations and citations omitted). District courts
have broad discretion when considering whether to transfer the action to another venue. See
Brown v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 1991). A district court may
properly transfer a case to “the forum in which judicial resources could most efficiently be
utilized and the place in which the trial would be most ‘easy, expeditious and inexpensive.’” See
Insuracorp., Inc. v. American Fidelity Assur. Co., 914 F. Supp. 504, 506 (M.D. Ala. 1996)
(citation omitted).
Courts generally employ a two-part analysis when considering motions to transfer under
section 1404(a). See United States ex rel. Elder v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 83852, at *6-7 (N.D. Ala. June 14, 2013); C.M.B. Foods, Inc. v. Corral of Middle
Georgia, 396 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1286 (M.D. Ala. 2005). First, a court should determine whether
the action might have been commenced in the district court to which transfer is sought. See
C.M.B. Foods, Inc., 396 F. Supp. 2d at 1286. Second, a court should balance various factors and
determine whether the action should be transferred “for the convenience of the parties [and] in
the interests of justice.” See id. There are a number of factors that courts balance when making
this determination, including: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of
3
witnesses; (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof;
(4) the convenience of parties; (5) the locus of operative facts; (6) the availability of process to
compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (7) the relative means of the parties; (8) the
forum’s familiarity with the governing law; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice,
based on the totality of the circumstances. See Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135
n.1 (11th Cir. 2005); Ellis v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123192, at *33
(M.D. Ala. Aug. 30, 2012). When this two-part analysis is applied to this case, the factors weigh
strongly in favor of transferring this case to the District of Columbia.
A. The District Of Columbia Is A Proper Forum
As an initial matter, this case could have been brought in the District of Columbia. An
action under the False Claims Act “may be brought in any judicial district in which the defendant
or, in the case of multiple defendants, any one defendant can be found, resides, transacts
business, or in which any [act proscribed by the FCA] occurred.” See 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a).
Defendant transacts business in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. (See
http://www.usis.com/Fact-Sheet.aspx (USIS “has more than 6,000 employees who support
business operations in all 50 states, U.S. territories, and overseas”). Thus, the District of
Columbia is a proper forum.
Moreover, the acts proscribed by the FCA that are alleged in the Complaint all occurred
in the District of Columbia area and Western Pennsylvania. OPM, based in the District of
Columbia, entered into contracts with Defendant, based in nearby Falls Church, Virginia,
pursuant to which USIS conducted background investigations for OPM. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 16-17).
Pursuant to those contracts, USIS was required to conduct background investigations in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the fieldwork contracts and submit them to OPM in
4
Washington, D.C. for processing and payment. (Compl. ¶¶ 18-26). OPM would then pay USIS
for the completed background investigations. (Compl. ¶ 22, 38).
The United States’ allegations of fraud are centered on Defendant’s “dumping” practices,
which were effectuated primarily by employees located at USIS’s facility in Western
Pennsylvania, at the instruction of Virginia-based USIS management including the former CEO
of USIS. (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 45-46, 48, 50, 51-56). As set forth in the Complaint, a Workload
Leader based in Western Pennsylvania, using a computer software program, would identify and
release cases to OPM and represent them as complete even though he knew the cases had not
received the quality review that the contracts required. (Compl. ¶¶ 44-46). These false
representations were submitted electronically by the USIS Workload Leader in Western
Pennsylvania to OPM in Washington, D.C. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-37, 46). Believing that the submitted
background investigations were completed in accordance with the requirements of the contracts,
OPM would then transfer payment for those background investigations to USIS through the
Treasury Financial Communications System. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 38, 61-63).
By contrast, no conduct alleged in the Complaint occurred in the Middle District of
Alabama. The only relation this case has to the Middle District of Alabama is that relator
currently resides there and, hence, chose to file his initial action there. See United States ex rel.
Elder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *6-7.
5
B. The Convenience Of Parties And Witnesses And Interests Of Justice Support

Transfer Of This Case To The District Of Columbia
1. The United States’ Choice Of Forum Is Entitled To Deference
A plaintiff’s initial choice of forum is generally accorded deference by the court. See In
re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 573 (11th Cir. 1989). Because the initial action in this case was
filed by relator, the United States, the real party in interest in this case, has not previously made
its own selection of the appropriate forum in which this case should be litigated. The United
States has now intervened and determined that transfer to the District of Columbia for discovery
and trial would save the parties and witnesses considerable time and resources given that the case
has no significant connection to Alabama. The United States’ request to litigate this action in the
District of Columbia is entitled to great weight. See New York Marine & Gen. Ins. v. Lafarge N.
Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 114 (2d Cir. 2010).
The fact that relator chose to file his initial complaint in the Middle District of Alabama
should be given no weight. Because the United States is the real party in interest in a qui tam
action, a relator’s initial choice of venue is entitled to little deference. See United States ex rel.
La Valley v. First Nat’l Bank, 625 F. Supp. 591, 594 (D.N.H. 1985) (United States is real party
in interest in a qui tam action and, as such, relator’s initial choice of forum is entitled to little
weight). Moreover, relator’s original choice of forum here should be given no weight because,
as stated supra, none of the conduct alleged to have violated the FCA took place in Alabama.
See Johnson v. Foster-Wheeler Constructors, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 496, 505 (M.D. Ala. 1994)
(“[w]here none of the conduct complained of took place in the forum selected by Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff’s choice of forum is of minimal value in determining whether to transfer an action.”);
see also United States ex rel. Elder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *11-12 (“Alabama has no
6
connection to this case except that Plaintiff lives here. Because no events underlying Plaintiff’s
claims occurred in Alabama, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to less deference.”).1
2. Essentially all Witnesses Are Located Outside Of Alabama
The “most important factor” in weighing whether to transfer a case is the convenience of
the witnesses, and this factor also strongly weighs in favor of a transfer. See United States ex
rel. Elder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *6-7; Insuracorp., Inc., 914 F. Supp. at 506; see
also Fellner v. Cameron, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16208, at *8-9 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2010) (“The
convenience of both party and non-party witnesses is probably the single most important factor
in the analysis of whether transfer should be granted.”). OPM is located in the District of
Columbia and Defendant’s principal place of business is located nearby in Falls Church,
Virginia. As stated above, the fraud occurred in both Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia
when false statements and claims for payment were submitted by Defendant in Pennsylvania to
OPM employees in the District of Columbia. Accordingly, the present and former employees of
Defendant and OPM who will serve as the witnesses in this case primarily can be found in and
around the District of Columbia and Western Pennsylvania. While relator currently resides in
Alabama, he was working in Pennsylvania when he discovered the fraud pled in his initial qui
tam complaint, and only moved to Alabama after leaving the employment of Defendant.
Accordingly, essentially all witnesses will have to incur expense and time traveling to
and staying in Alabama for any evidentiary hearings or trial in this matter. Hence, “the
1
While the United States has filed its notice of intervention and a complaint in this case, these
actions have no impact on the United States’ ability, at this juncture, to move to transfer venue to
a more convenient and appropriate forum for possible litigation. See United States v. Kunkle,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8654, at *10-11 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 22, 2006). A plaintiff can move at any
time to transfer when it determines another forum is more convenient, and a court considering
7
convenience of the majority of witnesses favors transfer of this action” from Alabama to the
District of Columbia, a more geographically convenient and central nexus for the parties and
many of the witnesses. See United States ex rel. Elder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *14;
Insuracorp., Inc., 914 F. Supp. at 506; see also United States v. Klearman, 82 F. Supp. 2d 372,
375 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (noting that location of witnesses favored transfer when majority of
witnesses were located in other forum and there was no evidence that other forum was not more
convenient for those witnesses who still had to travel).
3. The Relevant Documents Are All Located Outside Of Alabama
The location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof also
favors transfer of this case to the District of Columbia. See United States ex rel. Elder, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *15-16; Insuracorp., Inc., 914 F. Supp. at 506. The documents
relevant to this case will be primarily located in the District of Columbia, Falls Church, Virginia,
and Western Pennsylvania. As stated above, Defendant’s alleged dumping practices were
carried out by employees who worked in Western Pennsylvania, at the instruction of Virginia-
based USIS management, and the false claims were submitted for payment to employees of
OPM in the District of Columbia. OPM’s mainframe computer, which houses all of the
information on the background investigations conducted by USIS for OPM, is also located in the
District of Columbia. (Compl. ¶ 35). In contrast, there are no relevant documents in Alabama.
As one court noted when deciding to transfer a case to the district where the relevant documents
were primarily located, “it is this court’s experience that, as a practical matter, the introduction of
documentary evidence often leads to the necessity of live witnesses for various purposes,
such a request applies the factors under Section 1404(a). See e.g., Philip Carey MFG. Co. v.
Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 784 (6th Cir. 1961).
8
including authentication and to provide explanation and/or context for information contained in
the documents.” See United States ex rel. Roop v. Arkray USA, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19325, at *8-9 (N.D. Miss. March 19, 2007). That some of these documents will be in electronic
format does not change the fact that the location of these documents in other jurisdictions favors
transfer. See Patent Mgmt. Found. LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7389,
at *13-15 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2011) (“the possibility that documents can be produced electronically
does not alter the conclusion that the cost of litigation will likely be less if the case were venued
in the forum where the evidence is located.”).
4. The Convenience Of Parties Supports Transfer
The fourth factor also weighs in favor of transfer because the District of Columbia is a
more convenient forum for the parties than the Middle District of Alabama. As stated above, the
District of Columbia would be more convenient for the testimony of witnesses and the
production and review of documentary evidence. See United States ex rel. Elder, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *16-17. Given the minimal nexus to this District, litigating in this forum
would place significant costs in both time and money upon the parties. Both parties would incur
expenses traveling to, and lodging in, this District for conferences with the Court, pretrial
hearings, and ultimately trial. Both parties presently have counsel based in Washington, D.C.
Transfer to the District of Columbia would thus benefit all the parties and greatly reduce travel
costs, time, and inconvenience. See United States ex rel. Swan v. Covenant Care, Inc., 1999
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15287, at *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 1999) (granting motion to transfer where
it would “significantly reduce, if not eliminate, much inconvenience to the witnesses and the
parties and will bring the action closer to the place where the alleged fraud took place.”).
9
5. All Of The Conduct Underlying The United States’ Claims Occurred

Outside Of Alabama
The fifth factor also weighs in favor of a transfer. None of the conduct at issue in the
Complaint took place in Alabama; instead, the conduct occurred in the vicinity of the District of
Columbia and the Western District of Pennsylvania. As stated above, Defendant’s decisions and
actions that gave rise to the fraudulent conduct took place in Northern Virginia and Western
Pennsylvania and the false claims for payment were submitted to and paid by OPM in the
District of Columbia. Since the allegedly false claims were submitted for payment to a federal
agency in the District of Columbia, that district “has a significant interest in providing a forum
for these allegations of fraud.” See United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body
Armor, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 42, 46 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting such a public interest in keeping a
FCA case in the District of Columbia). In contrast, as stated above, none of the alleged conduct
at issue in this FCA lawsuit took place in Alabama. Accordingly, this factor strongly weighs in
favor of a transfer. See United States ex rel. Elder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *18-19.
6. Trial Efficiency And The Interests of Justice Support Transfer
Consideration of trial efficiency and the interests of justice support transferring this case
to the District of Columbia. This factor “calls for an objective evaluation of a diverse set of
factors.” See Harper v. American Airlines, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56360, at *18-19 (N.D.
Ala. May 18, 2009). As one court has noted, the “preeminent considerations include the
importance of ‘having localized controversies stay at home’ [and] the desire to avoid imposing
jury duty ‘upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation.’” Id. As
stated above, the United States alleges that Defendant’s employees in Pennsylvania, with the
knowledge of its Northern Virginia-based executives, submitted false claims for payment to
10
OPM employees in the District of Columbia. In short, the acts alleged in the Complaint did not
take place in Alabama, and the District of Columbia presents the most convenient and
geographically central forum for this litigation for all the reasons discussed above. See United
States ex rel. Elder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 838852, at *22-23 (granting motion to transfer qui
tam from Alabama to Virginia and observing that “[b]ecause the majority of the … events
forming the basis of Plaintiff’s … Complaint occurred in Virginia, the court finds that trial
efficiency and the interests of justice favor transfer of this action.…”); see also Just Intellectuals,
PLLC v. Clorox Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130900, at *13 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2010)
(granting motion to transfer qui tam action, and noting that “[a] fundamental principle guiding
this balancing test is that the litigation should proceed in the district where the case finds its
center of gravity.”).2
CONCLUSION
The factors used by courts in weighing motions to transfer under section 1404(a) strongly
favor transfer of this action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In contrast,
no factors favor keeping the action in this District. Accordingly, the United States respectfully
requests that the Court transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
2
The remaining factors considered by courts when analyzing a motion to transfer under Section
1404(a) are neutral. The availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses
is a neutral factor because, under the False Claims Act, compulsory process is available on a
nationwide basis. See 31 U.S.C. § 3731(a) (“A [subpoena] requiring the attendance of a witness
at a trial or hearing conducted under [the FCA] may be served at any place in the United
States.”). The relative means of the parties is also a neutral factor. Defendant is a large
corporation doing business nationwide and Plaintiff is the United States. As stated above, both
the United States and Defendant have counsel in the District of Columbia involved in this
pending civil case. Accordingly, both parties have the resources to litigate in the District of
Columbia. Finally, the forum’s familiarity with governing law is also a neutral factor. This case
arises under a federal statute and common law such that “both districts would be equally
11
STUART F. DELERY
Civil Division
GEORGE L. BECK, JR.

/s/ James Dubois

JAMES J. DUBOIS
P.O. Box 197
Telephone No.: (334) 223-7280
Facsimile No.: (334) 223-7418

MICHAEL D. GRANSTON
TRACY L. HILMER
D.C. Bar No. 471019
Post Office Box 261
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Dated: April 11, 2014
knowledgeable regarding the governing law.” See Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc., v.
New Frontier Media, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1329-1330 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2010).
12

NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-527-WKW
v. )
)
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, LLC.,)
)
Defendant. )
)
UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMES NOW Plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through Counsel, and
moves the Court for an order transferring its action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§
3730 et. seq., to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, transfer of
the United States’ action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would greatly
serve the interests of justice and convenience of the witnesses and parties, as the locus of the
fraud and many of the relevant witnesses and documents are located in or around Washington,
D.C. By contrast, this case has virtually no connection to the Middle District of Alabama.
Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that this False Claims Act action be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
A Memorandum of Law and Proposed Order are being submitted along with this Motion.
STUART F. DELERY
Civil Division
GEORGE L. BECK, JR.

/s/ James Dubois

JAMES J. DUBOIS
P.O. Box 197
Telephone No.: (334) 223-7280
Facsimile No.: (334) 223-7418

MICHAEL D. GRANSTON
TRACY L. HILMER
D.C. Bar No. 471019
Post Office Box 261
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Dated: April 11, 2014
2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 11th day of April 2014, I caused true and correct copies
of the United States’ Motion to Transfer Venue, Memorandum of Law in Support, and Proposed
Order to be served on counsel listed below through the Court’s electronic filing system. Copies
were also served on counsel listed below via email.
Larry Golston
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
272 Commerce St.
P.O. Box. 4160
[email protected]
Counsel for Relator
Jonathan Aronie
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
1300 I St NW
11th Floor East
Washington, DC 20005
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Melissa R. Handrigan

Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
3

NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff United States’s motion to transfer venue. (Doc.
# 44.) It is ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response on or before April 24,
2014.
DONE this 15th day of April, 2014.


NORTHERN DIVISION

BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
}
Defendant. }
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”) responds to the Motion to
Transfer Venue, [Doc. #44], filed by the Government on April 11, 2014, as follows:
1. On April 11, 2014 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Government filed a
Motion to Transfer Venue and requested that the Court transfer this case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia. [Doc. #44]. On April 15, 2014, the Court directed USIS to
respond to the motion by no later than April 24, 2014. [Doc. #45].
2. USIS does not oppose the Motion to Transfer Venue.
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Transfer Venue should be granted, and the
entire case should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Dated: Friday, April 18, 2014 /s/ Jackson R. Sharman III

1
OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
Bruce J. Casino (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]
Jonathan S. Aronie (admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
Telephone: (202) 218-0000
Facsimile: (202) 218-0020
2
record through this Court’s electronic filing system on this 18th day of April, 2014:
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW

Of Counsel
3

NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
)
) 2:11-cv-527-WKW
LLC )
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
)
RELATOR’S RESPONSE TO THE

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMES NOW the Relator, by and through undersigned counsel, and responds to the
Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. # 44) filed by the U.S. Government on April 11, 2014 as
follows:
1. On or about October 24, 2013, the Government filed a notice with the Court
intervening (Doc. # 24) in the instant action. Further, on or about January 22, 2014, the
Government filed its Intervenor Complaint (Doc. #26) where in the Government intervened in
Relator’s False Claims Act claims made pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A) (2009)
{formerly §3729 (a)(1) (2006)}, and 31 U.S.C. §3729 (a)(1)(B) (2009) {§3729 (a)(2) (2006)}.
2. On or about April 11, 2014, the Government filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to
the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).
Page 1 of 4
3. The Relator does not oppose the Motion to Transfer the claims raised pursuant to
31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A) (2009) {formerly §3729 (a)(1) (2006)}, and 31 U.S.C. §3729
(a)(1)(B) (2009) {§3729 (a)(2) (2006)}.
4. However, the Relator does oppose a transfer of Relator’s claims raised pursuant to
31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h) – the retaliation claim. Counsel for the Relator has conferred with counsel
for the Government and the Government does not oppose this Court retaining jurisdiction over
Relator’s claims raised pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h).
5. Consequently, the Government’s Motion to Transfer Venue should be granted
with respect to the claims raised pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A) (2009) {formerly §3729
(a)(1) (2006)}, and 31 U.S.C. §3729 (a)(1)(B) (2009) {§3729 (a)(2) (2006)}, but the Relator
claims raised pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h) should not be transferred and instead remain in
this Court.
Respectfully submitted this, 18th day of April, 2014.

OF COUNSEL:

Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Page 2 of 4
I hereby certify that on April 18, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court using the CM/ECF system and that a copy was served upon the following counsel of
record through the Court’s electronic filing system:

Jeffrey P. Doss
The Clark Building
James Joseph DuBois

U.S. Attorney’s Office
P.O. Box 197
Joyce Brada
Tracy L. Hilmer
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div.
P.O. Box 261
Michael D. Granston
Melissa R. Handrigan
U. S. Department of Justice
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Div.
601 D Street NW
Room 9120
Washington, DC 20044
Page 3 of 4
Jonathan Aronie
Bruce J. Casino
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Washington, DC 20005-3314

Page 4 of 4

NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, }

ex rel., BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS }
SERVICES, LLC, }
}
Defendant.

OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE AMENDED RELATOR COMPLAINT
AND THE INTERVENOR COMPLAINT
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”) respectfully requests
that this Court extend the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Intervenor
Complaint, [Doc. #26], and the Amended Relator Complaint, [Doc. #31], to 10
days after the court decides the pending Motion for Transfer [Doc. #44]. In further
support, USIS states as follows:
1. On July 1, 2011, Relator Blake Percival filed a Complaint pursuant to
the False Claims Act against USIS (“the Relator Complaint”). [Doc. #1]. On
October 24, 2013, the Government elected to intervene, and on October 29, 2013,
this Court unsealed, among other documents, the Relator Complaint. [Docs. #24,
25]. Following its election to intervene, on January 22, 2014, the Government
1
filed its Complaint (“the Intervenor Complaint”). [Doc. #26]. On February 5,
2014, Mr. Percival filed an Amended Complaint (“the Amended Relator
Complaint”). [Doc. #31].
2. On March 19, 2014 this Court, in response to an unopposed motion by
USIS [Doc. #38], set April 23, 2014 as the date by which USIS answer all counts
in this action was due. [Doc .#41].
3. The Intervenor Complaint and the Amended Relator Complaint assert
claims under the False Claims Act arising from alleged “dumping” by USIS – that
is, the alleged “releasing of Cases to OPM that were represented as Field Finished
that were not reviewed by a Reviewer and/or had not been investigated at all.”
[Doc. #31 ¶ 29].
4. On April 11, 2014 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the
Government filed a Motion to Transfer Venue and requested that the Court
transfer its action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. [Doc.
#44].
5. On April 15, 2014, the Court directed USIS to respond to the motion
by no later than April 24, 2014. [Doc. #45].
6. On April 18, 2014 USIS responded that it did not oppose the Motion
to Transfer and accordingly the “entire case” should be transferred. [Doc. #46].
2
7. On April 18, 2014, after USIS’s filing, Relator filed its Response to
the Motion to Transfer Venue. [Doc. 47]. The Relator did not oppose the Motion
to Transfer all claims, with the exception of the Relator’s retaliation claim. The
Relator did oppose a transfer of Relator’s claims raised pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §
3730(h) – the retaliation claim. “[T]he Relator claims raised pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
§ 3730 (h) should not be transferred and instead remain in this Court.” [Doc. #47].
8. USIS is filing today its Reply to the Relator’s Response.
9. USIS needs additional time to prepare its response because it does not
know whether the Court will transfer all of the counts, all but the retaliation counts,
or none of the counts in this action and thus does not know and cannot efficiently
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
10. Furthermore, USIS needs additional time to prepare its response to the
Intervenor Complaint and the Amended Relator Complaint, both of which concern
USIS’s long-term transactions with the United States as well as complex legal
considerations under the False Claims Act. In particular, the Intervenor Complaint
and the Amended Relator Complaint assert claims arising out of contracts with the
United States that span, at least, a four-year period of time. The Government spent
approximately two years investigating the claims in the Relator Complaint before
electing to intervene, [Docs. #4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22], and
USIS needs a short further extension of time to develop its response.
3
11. This request is made in good faith and without any intention of unduly
delaying these proceedings. The undersigned have conferred with counsel for Mr.
Percival and counsel for the Government, and neither has any objection to this
request. As an unopposed request, no party will be prejudiced by this brief
extension.
Accordingly, USIS requests that the Court set its deadline to answer or
otherwise respond to the Intervenor Complaint and the Amended Relator
Complaint at 10 days following the issuance of the Court’s decision on the motion
to transfer venue.
Dated: April 23, 2014 /s/ Jackson R. Sharman III

OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
4
Bruce J. Casino (pro hac vice)

[email protected]
Jonathan S. Aronie (pro hac vice)
[email protected]
Telephone: (202) 218-0000
Facsimile: (202) 218-0020
5
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following
counsel of record through this Court’s electronic filing system on this 23rd day of
April, 2014:
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW

Of Counsel
6

NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, }

ex rel., BLAKE PERCIVAL, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
}
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS }
SERVICES, LLC, }
}
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO RELATOR’S

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Defendant U.S. Investigations Services, LLC (“USIS”) responds to the
Relator’s Response [Doc. #45] to the Motion to Transfer Venue, [Doc. #44],
filed by the Government on April 11, 2014, as follows:
On April 11, 2014 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the
Government filed a Motion to Transfer Venue and requested that the Court
transfer its action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
[Doc. #44]. On April 15, 2014, the Court directed USIS to respond to the
motion by no later than April 24, 2014. [Doc. #45]. On April 18, 2014 USIS
responded that it did not oppose the Motion to Transfer and accordingly the
“entire case” should be transferred. [Doc. #46].

On April 18, 2014, after USIS’s filing, Relator filed its Response to the
Motion to Transfer Venue. [Doc. 47]. The Relator did not oppose the
Motion to Transfer all claims, with the exception of the Relator’s retaliation
claim. The Relator did oppose a transfer of Relator’s claims raised
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) – the retaliation claim. “[T]he Relator
claims raised pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (h) should not be transferred
and instead remain in this Court.” [Doc. #47]. Relator’s Response at 2.
The Relator cites to no law and makes no argument in support of his
position other than the fact that the United States does not oppose his
position.
Reply of USIS
When USIS filed its Response not opposing the Motion to Transfer it
was with the understanding and expectation that the entire case would
transfer. To bifurcate the claims in this action and have one litigated in this
Court and the other in the District of Columbia goes against the whole
principle of venue transfer and joinder of claims. It would result in an
enormous waste of judicial and party resources. There is no case law
precedent for what Relator is requesting here, a venue transfer operating to
split the Relator’s, and now the Government’s, 3729 claims from the
Relator’s 3730(h) claim, both arising under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).
2
The venue transfer statute 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), allows a transfer “for
the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” If
the 3730(h) claim is not transferred, then the Government’s change of
venue motion’s main rationale – that it will be more convenient to the
parties and witnesses to transfer to DC – falls apart. There would be
considerable overlapping discovery, motion practice, trial witnesses, and
issues litigated in each action. The claims under 3729 and 3730(h) are
both FCA claims. They were brought in a single action by the Relator. The
retaliation claim under 3730(h) requires a proof of efforts to stop violations
of the FCA and retaliation motivated by such efforts. 3730(h). Thus the
causes of action are inextricably intertwined.
If the Court retains jurisdiction of the 3730(h) claim while transferring
the Government’s claims, then either the Government’s motion or the
Relator’s response should really be treated as a motion to sever in addition
to a motion to transfer in part. That effort at severance should be rejected.
The related claims brought now by the United States and Relator should be
adjudicated in a single action consistent with the doctrines of judicial
economy and convenience to parties and witnesses that underscore the
Court’s broad discretion to permit joinder of claims or parties and
consolidation of actions for trial. Indeed, “[t]he Supreme Court has
instructed the lower courts to employ a liberal approach to permissive
3
joinder of claims and parties in the interest of judicial economy: Under the
Rules, the impulse is towards entertaining the broadest possible scope of
action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and
remedies is strongly encouraged.” Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d
1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383
U.S. 715, 725 (1966) (overruled on other grounds by Manders v. Lee, 338
F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003)).
Courts determinations of whether actions should be consolidated for
trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) likewise depend on
weighing the risks of prejudice and possible confusion against
the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual

and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and
available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits,
the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as
against a single one, and the relative expense to all
concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.
Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir.
1985) (quoting Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir.
1982). These factors weigh heavily in favor of keeping the Relator’s
3730(h) claim in the same action as the rest of the claims.
The same concerns apply to venue transfers. As the government
explained:
A district court in its discretion may transfer an

action for the convenience of the parties and
4
witnesses and in the interest of justice. See 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this transfer
provision is to “prevent the waste of time, energy
and money, and to protect litigants, witnesses and
the public against unnecessary inconvenience and
expense. District courts have broad discretion
when considering whether to transfer the action to
another venue. A district court may properly
transfer a case to “the forum in which judicial
resources could most efficiently be utilized and the
place in which the trial would be most “easy,
expeditious and inexpensive.”
Memorandum In Support Of The United States Motion To Transfer Venue
(“Memorandum”) at 3 (citations omitted).
Applying these principles the United States explains:
[T]he only connection this lawsuit has with the

Middle District of Alabama is the fact that the relator
currently resides here, and the Defendant does
business nationwide. Essentially all the other
witnesses, all the evidence, and the location of the
alleged fraud are outside of Alabama. A transfer
would therefore greatly serve the interests of justice
and convenience of the witnesses and parties.
(“Memorandum”), at 1. All of these factors including the location of the
purported retaliation -- which was outside of Alabama -- argue in favor of
the transfer of the entire case.
The government then goes on to identify the various factors courts
consider when deciding whether or not to transfer.
(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the

convenience of witnesses; (3) the location of
relevant documents and relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (4) the convenience of parties; (5)
5
the locus of operative facts; (6) the availability of

process to compel the attendance of unwilling
witnesses; (7) the relative means of the parties; (8)
the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; and
(9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based
on the totality of the circumstances.
Memorandum at 3-4 citing Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132
1135 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005). All of these factors, the United States concludes,
favor transfer or are neutral.
Memorandum at 4-11. Indeed as the United States explains, all of the
many witnesses except Mr. Percival are outside of Alabama, the relevant
documents are all located outside of Alabama, the convenience of the
parties favors transfer, all of the conduct underlying the claims occurred
outside of Alabama and trial efficiency and the interests of justice support
transferring the case. Memorandum at 6-11.1 Nor does Relator allege in
the Complaint the retaliation occurred in Alabama. See Complaint (Doc.
No. 1).
The United States next recites the connections to the District of
Columbia in the case including alleged “false representations made to OPM
in Washington D.C.” Id. at 2. Allegedly relying on these false
representations, OPM employees in the District of Columbia issued
payments and bonuses to USIS. Id.
1
The one factor possibly in Mr. Percival’s favor, the relative means of the parties, is not argued by him
in his Response. Furthermore, it is outweighed by the other factors above and the importance of not
wasting judicial, witness, and party resources on a bifurcated case.
6
Significantly in the case of the Relator’s choice of forum, the
government argues that it is due no deference in a qui tam case.
Furthermore,
relator’s original choice of forum here should be

given no weight because, as stated supra, none of
the conduct alleged to have violated the FCA took
place in Alabama. See Johnson v. Foster-Wheeler
Constructors, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 496, 505 (M.D. Ala.
1994) (“[w]here none of the conduct complained of
took place in the forum selected by Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff’s choice of forum is of minimal value in
determining whether to transfer an action”)’ see also
United States ex rel. Elder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
838852, at *11-12 (“Alabama has no connection to
this case except that Plaintiff lives here. Because no
events underlying Plaintiff’s claims occurred in
Alabama, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to less
deference).
Memorandum at 6-7. This is precisely the case here. Neither the 3729 nor
the 3730(h) claim is alleged to have arisen in Alabama. See Complaint.
[Doc. # 1].
CONCLUSION
The Relator’s attempt to sever one of the FCA counts from the other
FCA counts would result in two overlapping and duplicative cases wasting
judicial, witness, and party resources in two federal district courts.
Furthermore, as the United States has argued, the factors used by courts in
weighing motions to transfer under 1404(a) strongly favor transfer of all
7
counts of this action to the District of Columbia. For all these reasons,
USIS submits this entire action should be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia as originally requested by the
United States.
Dated: April 23, 2014 /s/ Jackson R. Sharman III

OF COUNSEL:
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
The Clark Building
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
Bruce J. Casino (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]
Jonathan S. Aronie (admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
Telephone: (202) 218-0000
Facsimile: (202) 218-0020
8
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the
following counsel of record through this Court’s electronic filing system on
this 23rd day of April, 2014:
Jere Locke Beasley

P.O. Box 4160
James Joseph DuBois

P.O. Box 197
Joyce Branda
Tracy L. Hilmer
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 261
Melissa Handrigan
CIVIL DIVISION
601 D Street NW

Of Counsel
9

NORTHERN DIVISION

)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the court is the Government’s motion to transfer venue. (Doc. # 44.)
Defendant U.S. Investigation Services, Inc. does not oppose the motion. (Doc.
# 46.) Relator Blake Percival does not oppose the motion, but requests that “the
claims raised pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) [retaliation claim] should not be
transferred and instead [should] remain in this Court.” (Doc. # 47 ¶ 5.) Defendant
filed a reply (Doc. # 49), and argues that “bifurcat[ing] the claims in this action
. . . goes against the whole principle of venue transfer and joinder of claims”
because “the causes of action are inextricably intertwined.” (Doc. # 49, at 2–3.)
After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel and the record as a
whole, the court finds that the balance of convenience and the interests of justice
clearly weigh in favor of transfer and that the appropriate venue is the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to transfer venue (Doc. # 44) is
GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to effect the transfer to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.
DONE this 24th day of April, 2014.


Altegrity Fraud Charges - USA Ex - Rel BlakePercival v. US Investigations Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Altegrity Fraud Charges - USA Ex - Rel BlakePercival v. US Investigations Services

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Altegrity Fraud Charges - USA Ex - Rel BlakePercival v. US Investigations Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 1:14-cv-00726-RMC Document 1-2 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 151

Case 1:14-cv-00726-RMC Document 1-2 Filed 04/25/14 Page 2 of 151

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

1. the relator’s complaint, the Government’s Notice of Intervention, and

this Order be unsealed;

this Order, on or before January 22, 2014;

date of this Order.

DONE this 29th day of October, 2013.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1367(a).

because USIS transacts business and is found in this district.

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), and under 28

Office of Personnel Management.

A. The Federal False Claims Act

government if the person “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or

approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (2006).

statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) (2009). Prior to

property is to be drawn down or used on the Government’s behalf or to advance a Government

B. USIS’s Contractual Relationship with OPM

13. OPM’s Federal Investigative Service (FIS) is responsible for performing

background investigations of current or prospective federal employees or contractors for a

federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security,

Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Transportation, Department of

Treasury, and Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency.

investigations for OPM under government contracts since 1996.

services contract, Contract No. OPM04-06-00004 (the “Support Contract”).

i. The 2006 Fieldwork Contract

investigators prepare “Reports of Investigations,” or “ROIs,” documenting the results of their

interviews and/or record checks on an applicant.

comprising a background investigation, also referred to as a “case,” before submitting the

Handbook Version 5-Dated March 2005 and Handbook Revisions Notices.”

background investigation at issue.

ii. The 2011 Fieldwork Contract

investigations assigned to it by OPM.

The Contractor shall conduct a pre-submission quality review by a qualified reviewer of

completed, reviewed investigative items electronically to OPM . . . .”

26. The 2011 fieldwork contract remains in effect.

iii. The Support Contract

related to the background investigations program.

scheduling background investigations for OPM; various case/file management functions,

imaging files of completed investigations for retention.

closing of the case for OPM.

staff and those to be sent to CAST for review and closing.

C. The Work Flow Process

Specifically, when FIS received a request from an agency to complete a background

32. If an investigation was assigned to USIS, PIPs electronically forwarded the

33. After it was assigned a background investigation, a USIS employee referred to as

investigation file could have been comprised of multiple ROIs.

electronic transfer through the Treasury Financial Communications System.

performance in three areas: timeliness of completed background investigations, quality of work,

of that bonus, was entirely within the discretion of OPM.

program management areas.

for new or continued employment and/or possession of a security clearance.

IV. The Fraudulent Scheme

A. USIS’s Dumping Practices

required quality reviews of completed background investigations in order to increase the

required by the Fieldwork Contracts.

dumped in a short time period.