A U.S. District Court judge in South Carolina agreed Thursday to grant a Department of Justice motion to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit filed in 2016 against Fluor and the Fluor-led management contractor for the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site over millions of dollars in reimbursement for home office expenses.
The one-page order from U.S. District Judge Julianna Michelle Childs said the federal government “shall take nothing of the defendants” resulting from the claims of unjust enrichment against Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) and Fluor Federal Services.
The dismissal order came fewer than two months after a three-judge panel for the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) issued a 15-page advisory opinion for the U.S. District Court, concluding the expenses billed to DOE are allowable under the management and operations contract.
“SRNS is pleased with the outcome and that the case has finally been dismissed,” Lindsey MonBarren, a spokeswoman for the contractor, said Monday by email. “We have been trying to settle the matter for many years and look forward to putting it behind us. We are proud of the fiscally-responsible manner in which we conduct business on behalf of the Federal Government,” MonBarren said.
DOE declined to comment.
In March 2016, the Justice Department sued Fluor and SRNS in federal district court, claiming the defendants wrongly billed DOE for upwards of $5 million in home office expenses not allowed by the contract. In April 2017, Judge Childs requested CBCA draft an opinion on contract interpretation issues.
The case revolves around a process dubbed “reachback,” the CBCA said in its opinion. This is where the corporate parents —Fluor, Newport News Nuclear and Honeywell— loan certain employees to SRNS to do contract-related work. The parents bill Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, which in turn seeks reimbursement from DOE.
The contractor in this case is Savannah River Nuclear Solutions and not its three corporate owners, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals said. The CBCA oversaw the litigation for about four years, culminating with oral arguments in March of this year.
