Department of Homeland Security Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

E‑Verify, FAR 52.222‑54, and Renewed FCA Risk: What Contractors Need to Know

Jennifer A. Short, and Oliver E. Jury ●

The current administration’s focus on immigration played out in a recent False Claims Act (“FCA”) matter in which a federal contractor was alleged to have billed for unauthorized workers in violation of FAR 52.222‑54 (Employment Eligibility Verification, “E-Verify”).

On September 18, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that Bayonne Drydock and Repair Corporation (“Bayonne”) agreed to pay $4,043,810.56 to resolve allegations that unauthorized workers worked on Bayonne’s Navy contracts over multiple years.

According to DOJ’s press release, in 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sent a “Notice of Suspect Documents” to a subcontractor controlled by Bayonne’s Risk Manager, questioning the work authorization of certain subcontractor employees. While the Risk Manager terminated the unauthorized employees, she re-hired some of them through another subcontractor that she controlled. Bayonne’s settlement agreement with DOJ asserts that between 2016 and 2020, Bayonne billed the government for the work of approximately 52 unauthorized employees working for entities owned or controlled by Bayonne’s Risk Manager. The settlement agreement also confirmed that the Risk Manager pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from her role with Bayonne and its subcontractors.

60-Second Sustains: ITility, LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

ITility, LLC
B-421871.3

The protester argued that the Department of Homeland Security had unreasonably assessed the awardee a “positive” based on an incorrect understanding of what the awardee had proposed.
Specifically, the protester argued that, while the Agency assigned a positive for an element of the awardee’s proposal relating to enterprise risk management (“ERM”), the awardee’s proposal actually used ERM to refer to enterprise resource management.
According to the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), the Agency did not substantively refute this allegation, so GAO sustained the protest.
GAO also agreed with the protester that the Agency unreasonably evaluated offers in two other respects:
1. First, the Agency unreasonably found that both the protester and awardee met key personnel requirements, when the protester had offered personnel that met qualifications identified in the RFP as “preferred.”
2. Second, the Agency found that the protester’s transition plan “met the requirements,” but failed to document any qualitative evaluation of the proposed plan, including the protester’s plan to have the contract fully staffed by Day 1 as the incumbent.
In both instances, GAO agreed that the Agency had ignored a potential discriminator in favor of the protester and sustained the protest grounds.

60-Second Sustains: Deloitte Consulting LLP and Softrams LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum ●

Deloitte Consulting LLP
B-422094; B-422094.2

During the evaluation of the awardee’s quotation, the Department of Homeland Security identified a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (“OCI”) with one of the awardee’s proposed teaming partners.
The Agency engaged in discussions with the awardee, in which the awardee informed the Agency that the teaming partner with the potential OCI would be immediately removed from the team and would not participate in the program upon award.
Deloitte argued that the agency failed to consider the impact of the teammate’s removal on the awardee’s proposed approach to performance.
The Agency provided declarations asserting that the agency had considered the elimination of the teaming partner and its impact on performance, but the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) found that those declarations were unsupported by the contemporaneous record and gave them little weight.
GAO sustained the protester’s argument that the Agency’s evaluation was unreasonable because it failed to consider the elimination of the teaming partner.

Deloitte Consulting LLP; Softrams, LLC
B-421801.2,B-421801.3,B-421801.4,B-421801.5,B-421801.6

DISPARATE TREATMENT

Both protesters alleged numerous instances where the Library of Congress engaged in disparate treatment by assessing strengths for elements of the awardees’ proposals that were substantially indistinguishable from the protesters’ proposal features that did not receive strengths.
In most cases, the Agency argued that the strengths in question stemmed from differences between the proposals or that the protesters’ proposal features were, in fact, captured in the evaluation. However, in a few instances, the Agency instead argued that the disparate treatment was insignificant or did not prejudice the protesters.
GAO found these instances amounted to a concession by the Agency that there had been disparate treatment and sustained these protests, since the competition was extremely close and any change in competitive standing could have impacted source selection.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: