GAO: Ongoing DoD Fraud Risk Assessment Efforts Should Include Contractor Ownership
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.27.19
On November 25, 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report examining risks posed to the Department of Defense (DoD) by contractors with “opaque ownership,” including financial and nonfinancial fraud and national security risks. Among other things, GAO found evidence that opaque ownership structures had been used to fraudulently inflate pricing and circumvent set-aside eligibility requirements in DoD procurements, and had enabled some foreign-owned companies to obtain contracts reserved for U.S. companies, access export controlled information without authorization, and/or misrepresent the country of origin of their offerings in order to meet domestic preference requirements. GAO recommended that DoD assess contractor ownership across DoD to determine whether additional ownership information should be collected to effectively manage potential fraud and national security risks. GAO noted that DoD has already begun a department-wide fraud risk management program, by requesting that DoD components identify risks and controls in place to mitigate these risks by July, 2019. The System for Award Management currently requires contractors to self-report information about their “immediate” and “highest-level” entity ownership – terms that do not necessarily match well with the often-complicated ownership structures of modern business, especially those contractors owned by private equity. This report may well result in additional reporting and certification requirements.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance


