Medical Device Manufacturer Acclarent Inc. to Pay $18 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations
Acclarent Inc., agrees to pay $18 million to settle false claims act allegations.
Nevada Man Sentenced to 25 Years in Prison for Perpetrating a Nationwide Multimillion-Dollar Fraud Scheme
Las Vegas man receives 25 year sentence for multimillion dollar scheme to defraud the government.
Former Federal Employee Labor Union President Sentenced In White Plains Federal Court For Stealing Union Funds
OIG and DOL investigation results in guilty plea and 15 month sentence for former Federation of Government Employees local president.
OIG Monthly Highlights
Read about our top reports and investigations in June 2016. Mr. Brent Arronte, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations, testified before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, on two Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports on records disposition for veterans’ claims-related documents. OIG found documents inappropriately scheduled for destruction at 11 VA Regional Offices (VAROs). The inappropriate destruction or mishandling of claims-related documents can lead to incorrect disability decisions and can affect the integrity of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA) reported workload. Mr. Arronte highlighted OIG’s historical work on this issue, which substantiated that VARO staff were not following VBA’s policy on the management of veterans’ and other governmental paper records, were not training employees, and were not filling records-management staff positions. Mr. Arronte acknowledged that VA has made some improvements in their compliance with records disposition over the years and that inappropriate document destruction will decrease with VBA’s move to a paperless environment. He cautioned that there will be a need for oversight to ensure documents are actually scanned into veterans’ electronic records and to guard against the mishandling of documents containing personally identifiable information. Mr. Arronte was accompanied by Ms. Dana Sullivan, Director of the OIG’s San Diego Benefits Inspection Division.
Former Acclarent, Inc. Executives Convicted of Crimes Related to the Sale of Medical Devices
Joint investigation results in convictions on 10 counts of introducing adulterated and misbranded medical devices into interstate commerce.
Palm Beach County Resident Found Guilty of Defrauding Federal Agencies
Joint investigative effort from VA OIG and multiple other OIGs results in fraud conviction.
Review of Alleged Improper Contract Awards in OI&T's Service, Delivery, and Engineering Office
OIG conducted a review based on an anonymous allegation to assess whether a senior level Service, Delivery, and Engineering (SDE) official from VA’s Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) coerced Technology Acquisition Center (TAC) contracting officers to violate Federal competition requirements when awarding contracts to perform a study of SDE operations. We did not substantiate the allegation that the contracting officers were coerced to violate the Federal competition requirements. Furthermore, we determined that the contracting officers complied with Federal competition requirements under the FAR when they awarded the contracts. In June 2014, a TAC contracting officer awarded a task order valued at approximately $972,000 to a Federal Supply Schedule contractor for a study of SDE operations. The contracting officer met the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) competition requirements for orders above the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000. In January 2015, another TAC contracting officer awarded a task order valued at approximately $4.5 million to the same contactor to complete the study. The initial task order was for a period of 3 months while the second task order was for a period of 13 months. The first task order only required 2 major deliverables while the follow-on task order required 11 major deliverables as a result of an expansion and implementation of the original effort. The FAR allows for limiting competition in the interest of economy and efficiency if the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order. The contracting officer met the requirements under the FAR related to limiting competition for orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold.