United States District Court, District of Columbia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. CHARLES HUTCHINS AND JOYCE SUBHI, Plaintiff-Relators,
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants.
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hutchins and Joyce Subhi sue their former employer DynCorp
International, Inc., and related entities under the False
Claims Act, alleging that DynCorp falsified invoices; billed
at unreasonable rates; charged the federal government for
services not performed; provided sub-par goods and services,
or failed to provide them at all; hired unqualified
individuals; and otherwise submitted unwarranted claims for
payment for providing logistical and operational support to
the United States Army. Plaintiffs also allege retaliation.
After the United States declined to intervene, DynCorp moved
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a lack of
sufficient particularity in alleging fraud. Having reviewed
the record carefully, the Court finds that only one of
Plaintiffs' many alleged claims states a plausible
violation of the False Claims Act. Plaintiffs' other
claims allege possible contract breaches but not fraud.
Finally, because Plaintiffs did not engage in protected
activities prior to their separations from DynCorp, there is
no evidence of retaliation. The motion to dismiss will be
granted in part and denied in part.
United States Army administers the Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) through which it contracts with
private-sector companies to provide “contingency
support to augment the Army force structure” in various
military operations, including active combat in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Am. Compl. [Dkt. 24] ¶ 26. Defendant DynCorp
International Inc. is a global government services provider,
which provides base operations, supply chain management, and
infrastructure support. Defendant DynCorp International LLC
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DynCorp International Inc.
and provides operational support to U.S. forces in combat,
peacekeeping, humanitarian, and training missions around the
world, including Afghanistan. Referred to herein as
“DynCorp, ” the DynCorp International companies
were awarded an Army contract in April 2008, known as LOGCAP
IV, to “provide logistic and other support services
via a mission focused task order for a designated
geographical or operational area region, ” including
providing goods and services to camps and forward operating
bases in Afghanistan. Id. ¶¶ 29, 32, 34.
This contractual relationship between DynCorp and the U.S.
Army was governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR), 48 C.F.R. 1.000 et seq., and the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), 48 C.F.R.
201 et seq. Id. ¶ 30.
Charles T. Hutchins and Joyce Subhi are former employees of
DynCorp. Mr. Hutchins was hired by DynCorp in September 2010
as a senior manager of subcontracts (“subcontracts
senior manager”) at Kandahar Air Field and Camp
Leatherneck in Afghanistan. Id. ¶ 13. Ms. Subhi
was hired in May 2011 as a subcontracts senior manager
primarily in Afghanistan. Id. ¶ 16. A
subcontracts senior manager is responsible for
“managing complex procurement and administrative
activities for major government subcontracts consistent with
customer requirements, government regulations, and company
policies and procedures, ” which includes ensuring
“that DynCorp International complies with contract
requirements so that DynCorp International can represent to
the United States that it is in compliance with the United
States' regulatory and contractual requirements.”
Id. ¶¶ 13, 16. Mr. Hutchins and Ms. Subhi
were terminated from employment with DynCorp in 2012 and
2013, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 177, 280.
argue that they have personal knowledge of the alleged facts,
unless otherwise noted in the Amended Complaint. Pls.'
Mem. in Opp'n (Opp'n) [Dkt. 42] at 3. They also
assert that they “are experts in the areas about which
they complain and worked, ” and, finally, that each of
them is an attorney with “training in how to construe
statutory language, regulations and contractual
The Terms of DynCorp's LOGCAP IV Contract
LOGCAP IV contract between DynCorp and the U.S. Army
specified that DynCorp would provide services and equipment
to support the Army's operations in Afghanistan. In this
lawsuit, Mr. Hutchins and Ms. Subhi allege that DynCorp
failed to provide the services required under the contract,
failed to furnish equipment that met the standards required
by the contract, and otherwise fell short of contractual
requirements, but, nonetheless, submitted claims for, and
received, the corresponding contractual payments from the
contend that DynCorp improperly billed the Army for waste
management and related services that were not approved, were
duplicative, or were otherwise improper. DynCorp has provided
waste management services at over 20 bases in Afghanistan
since August 2009 under the LOGCAP IV contract. Id.
¶¶ 54, 64. This work was initially subcontracted to
various non-DynCorp contractors that supplied their own
vehicles, equipment, and personnel; each subcontractor billed
DynCorp monthly and, after paying the subcontractors, DynCorp
sought reimbursement from the Army. Id. ¶¶
began taking steps to perform these waste management services
itself, instead of using subcontractors, in September 2011.
Id. ¶ 60. About that time, it leased and
shipped waste management equipment and vehicles to Kandahar
Air Field. Id. The Amended Complaint alleges that
DynCorp employees discussed its intention to self-perform
waste management services in that month and that DynCorp
“hoped to make more money by self-performing these
services.” Id. ¶ 67. The Amended
Complaint additionally alleges that Ms. Subhi attended a
cost-analysis meeting sometime in late 2011 and that one
analysis indicated an additional cost to the Army of $1, 200,
000/year for DynCorp waste management services at one base
and an additional $1, 000, 000/year for similar DynCorp
services at another base. Id. ¶¶ 68-72.
Plaintiffs allege that DynCorp intended to perform waste
management services for at least 27 bases in Afghanistan.
Id. ¶ 74.
order to perform such services itself, DynCorp allegedly
executed leases for hundreds of waste management and water
delivery vehicles, “worth millions of dollars, ”
and had them shipped to Kandahar Air Field before DynCorp
notified the Army of its intention to self-perform, and
without requesting prior approval from the Army's
Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). See Id.
¶¶ 76-77. Plaintiffs identify multiple purchase
orders that allegedly pertain to these activities but
identify relevant leased goods on only two of them: purchase
order LG40032418 for $1, 385, 226 and approved on November 2,
2011, to lease numerous vehicles, including some at Spin
Boldak, a base in Afghanistan; and purchase order LG40030861
for $101, 400, to lease one trash truck. Id.
notes that Plaintiffs allege that the waste management
vehicles and equipment were flown on C-130 military aircraft
to U.S. military bases in Afghanistan from subcontractors in
South Carolina and Dubai. Id. ¶¶ 82, 105.
It asserts that such transport would have been well-known to
the Army, because it would require military coordination and
authorization. DynCorp Mem. at 12. Plaintiffs allege that
DynCorp failed to get prior approval from the
“Administrative Contracting Officer in Houston,
Texas.” Id. ¶ 60 (emphasis added);
see also Id. ¶ 76. DynCorp argues that
Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, allege that there was no
government approval, from either the Administrative
Contracting Officer in Afghanistan or another
to the Amended Complaint, Mr. Hutchins learned from an
unidentified member of the Projects Control Department at
Camp Leatherneck in March 2012 that DynCorp was using a
generic equipment billing code for the leased waste
management vehicles. Id. ¶¶ 108-09. At the
same time, DynCorp was allegedly billing the Army-using
specific “Waste Management and Water Delivery services
billing codes”-for the same services performed by
subcontractors. Id. ¶ 113. Ms. Subhi later
learned of this alleged double billing in early 2013.
Id. ¶ 110.
to the Amended Complaint, when DynCorp Project Management at
Kandahar Air Field learned that an Administrative Contracting
Officer was asking about the additional vehicles in the
Spring of 2012, DynCorp attempted to conceal the fact that
the vehicles were not being used “by directing workers
to drive the vehicles around the bases to add miles to the
odometers to make it look like the vehicles were being
used.” Id. ¶ 94. Allegedly, DynCorp
management was aware of these efforts, as they were discussed
in several conference calls in April or May of 2012.
Id. ¶ 97. Plaintiffs also allege, however, that
DynCorp was asked by the Administrative Contracting Officer
about “all these vehicles sitting idle at all the bases
and camps” and DynCorp responded that they were brought
to Afghanistan so that DynCorp itself could perform waste
management and water delivery services. See Id.
Amended Complaint recounts two instances of subcontractor
workers driving the vehicles leased for self-performance by
DynCorp in April or May 2012. Id. ¶¶
98-100. It alleges that the subcontractor should have, but
did not, reimburse DynCorp for use of the DynCorp-leased
vehicles and that, ultimately, the Army paid twice for the
necessary vehicles, because it reimbursed DynCorp for leased
vehicles and for subcontractor services that should have
included payment for necessary vehicles. Id.
¶¶ 101-02. Plaintiffs allege that permitting
subcontractors to drive the DynCorp-leased vehicles served to
conceal the fact that the DynCorp vehicles were a duplicative
and unwarranted cost. Id. ¶ 99.
about August 2013, DynCorp billed the Army for costs
associated with returning the vehicles, which included import
and export taxes that were passed on to the United States,
even though the Army had denied DynCorp's request to
self-perform in May 2012. Id. ¶¶ 73,
105-06. Plaintiffs allege that DynCorp had no
authority to invoice the Army for these duplicative vehicles
and equipment. Id. ¶ 96.
Amended Complaint further alleges that these additional
vehicles and equipment cost the Army “more than $20,
000, 000 in addition to the cost of utilizing existing
DynCorp's subcontractors to perform the same work.”
Id. ¶ 59. Plaintiffs also allege that DynCorp
billed the Army an extra $38, 000, 000 for DynCorp to
maintain a “duplicative fleet.” Id.
¶ 104. “For 23 waste management and water delivery
purchase orders for the period of November 2011 through 31
July 2012, ” Plaintiffs allege the Army paid DynCorp
$14, 311, 560.60. Id. ¶ 116. When those
contracts were extended through July 31, 2013, the charges
exceed $19, 000, 000. Id. Plaintiffs conclude that
“the false claims submitted by DynCorp International to
the United States for unauthorized duplicate waste management
and water delivery vehicles exceeded $33, 393, 541.40.”
Vehicles and Equipment
of a Work Performance Statement issued for August 1, 2011, to
July 31, 2012, the Army directed DynCorp to lease seven
50-seat passenger buses for transporting military personnel
at Camp Leatherneck. Id. ¶ 153. DynCorp leased
the seven 50-seat passenger buses from Nasseb Trading Company
on September 20, 2011, and they arrived at Camp Leatherneck
beginning in October 2011. Id. ¶¶ 154-56.
However, the buses lacked fire extinguishers and had to be
reconfigured to “accommodate the size and weight”
of military personnel and their equipment, leaving them with
43 seats. Id. ¶ 158. Mr. Hutchins sent
photographs of the first reconfigured bus to Mario Galiouras,
Subcontracts Senior Manager, who ordered the remaining buses
reconfigured in the same fashion. Id. Mr. Hutchins
also informed Mr. Galiouras sometime after March 14, 2012
that “the purchase order lease price needed to be
adjusted downwards to reflect the reduced capacity of the
seven buses, ” but such an adjustment was never made.
Id. ¶ 159.
Plaintiffs allege, DynCorp billed the Army as if the buses
had 50 useable seats and had arrived with fire extinguishers.
Id. ¶ 160. Dejan Lorvic, Fleet Management
Maintenance Supervisor at Kandahar Air Field, and Keith
Browning, Deputy Regional Manager at Camp Leatherneck,
allegedly signed Service Received Reports, which reported the
buses as mission capable, without first-hand knowledge of the
buses' operating status. Id. ¶¶
164-65. In 2012, DynCorp Project Management directed Mr.
Hutchins to “investigat[e] the circumstances of the
seven 50 seat buses.” Id. ¶¶ 167,
171. Mr. Hutchins then sent a memorandum to Jim DeLong,
DynCorp LOGCAP IV Project Manager; Mo Young, Deputy Project
Manager; J.D. McCoy, Hub Leatherneck Regional Manager; and
Sam Clear, Leatherneck Site Manager, on August 18, 2012, that
“detailed the improprieties related to the DynCorp
International LG40029880 related to the seven 50 seat
August 23 and 26, 2012, Mr. Hutchins asked DynCorp for
additional information and documents regarding other purchase
orders for leased vehicles and equipment. Id. ¶
174. He was terminated before he received that information.
Vehicles and Equipment That Were Not Mission Capable
required, DynCorp created records for each piece of equipment
or vehicle, including Service Received Reports, maintenance
records, and the maintenance manager's certification of
mission capable status. Id. ¶¶ 125-29.
Defects that could cause a piece of equipment to be
downgraded to “Not Mission Capable” include
“a cracked windshield, transmission problems, flat
tire, missing side mirror, worn out brakes, non-functional
seat belts, burned out head-lights, malfunctioning turn
signals, or inoperable stop lights.” Id.
¶ 120. Plaintiffs allege that “[b]eginning in
2011” and continuing, DynCorp billed the Army for
leased material handling equipment, construction equipment,
SUVs, pick-up trucks, buses, and other equipment and vehicles
that were not mission capable for at least a portion of the
preceding month. Id. ¶¶ 119, 125. These
records were relied upon by the Administrative Contracting
Officer to approve or deny DynCorp leases of specific
vehicles. Id. ¶ 129. Plaintiffs allege that
DynCorp representations on “purchase orders and other
contract documents” were “false and were relied
upon by the United States in the Administrative Contracting
Officer's approval determination and in the United States
[sic] decision to pay invoices.” Id.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that DynCorp managers failed
to review maintenance records to determine if vehicles or
pieces of equipment were actually mission capable, and did
not complete the required Service Received Report, so that
the DynCorp accounting department did not reduce
contractors' invoices for vehicles or equipment that were
Not Mission Capable during all or part of the prior month.
Id. ¶ 136.
scheme is alleged to have begun as early as 2011 at more than
20 camps and forward operating bases throughout the south and
southwestern portions of Afghanistan and to have involved Mr.
Galiouras, Oldirch Valceus,  and Dejan Lovric, Fleet
Management Maintenance Supervisor. Id. ¶¶
121, 125. Through this alleged subterfuge, Plaintiffs contend
that DynCorp billed the Army for “leased SUVs, pick-up
trucks, flatbed trucks, buses, construction equipment,
material handling equipment and other leased vehicles as
fully mission capable that were not fully mission
capable” because they were “not up to
specification, violated safety codes, and falsified Service
Received Reports were created to justify billing the
equipment and vehicles as fully mission capable.”
Id. ¶ 119.
responds that Plaintiffs provide no specific references
during their unstated time period as to what vehicles or
equipment were not mission ready or “exactly what that
means in a war zone, where equipment is highly likely to be
expected to suffer some damage without being rendered
unsatisfactory.” DynCorp Mem. at 20.
order to obtain approval of vehicle leases by the
Administrative Contracting Officer, DynCorp provided a
“package of documents” with details about the
specific vehicles and equipment to be leased, including their
age. Id. ¶ 142-43. In a conference call in
February or March 2012 on which Mr. Hutchins participated,
unnamed personnel were “questioned about acceptance of
vehicles and material-handling equipment that did not meet
the specifications listed on the purchase orders.”
Id. ¶ 145. Mr. Galiouras is alleged to have
responded that he knew that some vehicles were older than
shown on the purchase order but that “the year
indicated on the purchase order was actually more of a
general guideline rather than a hard and fast
requirement.” Id. ¶ 147. Plaintiffs
broadly allege that there were at least 67 vehicles that were
manufactured in a different year from the year that was
detailed on the purchase order; they specifically identify
ten such purchase orders for a total value of $1, 785,
822.75. Id. ¶ 152. Plaintiffs specify two
discrepancies among the ten: Purchase Order LG4007361 for a
2011 Toyota Hilux that was leased for $1, 773.27 per month in
July 2011 but was actually a 2007 model; and a 2005 forklift
leased from November 29, 2011 to April 28, 2012 that was
actually a 2001 model. Id. ¶¶ 149-50.
Physicals and Vaccines
Order of the Central Command-the CENTCOM Individual
Protection and Individual/Unit Deployment Policy (“MOD
11”)-required that “[g]overnment civilian
employees, volunteers, and DoD contractor personnel . . .
must be reevaluated for fitness to deploy. . . . An
examination with all medical issues and requirements
addressed will remain valid for 15 months from the date of
the physical.” Id. ¶ 246 (capitalization
and emphasis omitted). Beginning in September 2012 and
continuing through February 2013, DynCorp stopped all
personnel traveling through Dubai for an annual physical if
their most recent physical examination was 9 months or older.
Id. ¶¶ 247-49. Plaintiffs allege that
DynCorp management was aware that this was contrary to the
15-month window specified in MOD 11, as it was discussed in
meetings, phone calls, and emails. Id. ¶ 248.
DynCorp billed the Army for these physical examinations, for
the billable time employees spent being examined, and for any
hotels and meals they required. Id. ¶¶
249-50, 255-56. Ms. Subhi was “held up” in Dubai
for a physical and was paid for that time even though she was
unable to work. Id. ¶ 257. Plaintiffs allege
that these physicals could have been conducted, at lower
cost, by physicians on base in Afghanistan. Id.
responds that it needed to ensure that every employee in
theatre had had a physical examination within the past 15
months and that, to comply, it required those employees who
traveled through Dubai and whose last physical examination
was nine months or more before that trip, to undergo a
physical examination. DynCorp argues that its practical
policy applied only to those persons entering Afghanistan
from Dubai, not all employees, and that Plaintiffs do not
allege any misrepresentation by DynCorp to the government.
DynCorp Mem. at 37.
also requires that certain inoculations and vaccines be
administered, including vaccines for hepatitis and chicken
pox. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 258-59. DynCorp provides these
services at processing facilities in India and Dubai.
Id. ¶ 259. Plaintiffs allege that beginning
“as early as 2011, ” these processing facilities
administered “hundreds of inoculations and vaccines
that were expired or were for pediatric doses, ” and,
therefore, not in compliance with MOD 11. Id.
¶¶ 261-63. Local medical personnel allegedly
justified pediatric doses “by stating that the Indian
workers were very small people” and that the expired
vaccines were “still good.” Id.
¶¶ 265-66. These employees were subsequently
re-vaccinated, which Plaintiffs assert cost “many
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United States.”
Id. ¶ 264. Plaintiffs do not allege that the
Army was misled by this situation but, rather, that it should
have received a refund. Id. ¶ 268.
Equipment and Training
needed funds for medical services and equipment, DynCorp
requested monies from the Army by way of a material
requisition form. Id. ¶ 207*. From August 1,
2011, to July 31, 2012, DynCorp requested $100, 000 in funds
for a portable X-ray unit and $50, 000 for Cardio-Pulmonary
Resuscitation/First-Aid training. Id. ¶ 208.
The additional funds were not added to a subcontract, but
instead to standalone purchase orders, allowing DynCorp to
use the funds to pay other outstanding invoices. Id.
¶ 211. Plaintiffs allege that the requested training and
equipment were never purchased. Id. ¶ 213.
again requested funds between August 1, 2012, and July 31,
2013, for Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation/First Aid training
and a portable X-ray machine, totaling $140, 000.
Id. ¶¶ 215-16. An X-ray machine was
purchased with these funds. Id. ¶ 216. These
line items were included in a $686, 000 Material Requisition,
$130, 000 of which was for dental equipment. Id.
¶ 217. Plaintiffs allege the dental equipment was
removed from the material requisition form, but the $130, 000
was not subtracted and was used to pay other invoices.
Id. ¶¶ 217-19. Plaintiffs also allege that
Project Management was aware that both requests for funds had
been approved, but that no equipment was provided.
Id. ¶¶ 220-21. Plaintiffs contend DynCorp
“used the practice of duplicate Material Requisitions
to increase contract amounts and pay invoices to
subcontractors as the Administrative Contracting Officer
would not be able to track all such expenditures.”
Id. ¶ 225. In addition, the Amended Complaint
alleges that DynCorp created a separate purchase order for
the X-ray and Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation/First Aid
Training, which was approved by the Administrative
Contracting Officer and used to pay a DynCorp subcontractor,
Onsite Occupational Health and Safety. Id. ¶
rejects these allegations, pointing out that the central
purpose of LOGCAP is to “reduce the contracting
activity burden, especially in large scale operations with
multiple and often related service requirements.”
Id. ¶ 28; see DynCorp Mem. at 18. It
argues that this contract purpose, “combined with
Hutchins' admission that the Army has reviewed and
rejected these claims, negate any reasonable inference of
scienter or materiality.” DynCorp Mem. at 18 n.14.
Billing for Unauthorized Services
contracted with Onsite Occupational Health and Safety to
provide medical services to bases and camps throughout
Afghanistan, but that subcontract did not include medics at
the smallest sites, denoted “Band 5” sites. Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 226-27. However, the Amended Complaint
alleges that DynCorp's Project Manager for Afghanistan
directed Onsite Occupational to provide medics at those Band
5 sites that had dining facilities. Id. Salaries for
such personnel were included in monthly invoices submitted
to, and paid by, DynCorp. Id. On several occasions,
DynCorp attempted to “add additional funding to the
current Purchase Order” for these services but was
unsuccessful. Id. ¶ 228. Plaintiffs allege that
Fire Medics were sent to some of the Band 5 sites as early as
2011 but “the Onsite Occupational subcontract purchase
order was not revised to include medics at Band 5 sites with
dining facilities until March 2013.” Id.
¶ 234. Therefore, the Amended Complaint alleges, Onsite
Occupational “deployed medics to sites in [sic] which
DynCorp International knew they were not authorized or funded
to work.” Id. ¶ 235. “DynCorp . . .
paid those invoices and submitted the invoice to the United
States for payment.” Id.
to the Amended Complaint, “the military requested as
many as 12 Fire Medics but did not authorize additional funds
for those services.” Id. ¶ 237. DynCorp
agreed to provide the 12 Fire Medics at no cost to the Army
but it allegedly “did, in fact, add costs and billed
the United States.” Id. Furthermore, Onsite
Occupational provided emergency medical services at
additional multiple camps, from September 2011 through April
2013, but DynCorp is alleged to have never requested
additional funding and merely invoiced the Army without
authorization. Id. ¶¶ 239-44.
Amended Complaint alleges that “[a]ll of these charges
involved invoicing the United States for services that had
not been authorized . . . . DynCorp International had paid
for such unauthorized services from funds approved by the
United States for other purposes.” Id. ¶
244. It also alleges that “DynCorp International
Sourcing eventually requested additional funds for
unspecified costs . . . [and they] were approved and used to
pay for the unapproved medics providing emergency medical
services.” Id. ¶ 242.
to Plaintiffs, DynCorp Vice President of Sourcing, Krista
Robinson, changed DynCorp processes as of April 1, 2011, so
that DynCorp began submitting purchase orders for payment in
lieu of payments under service subcontracts because the
former returned higher commissions to DynCorp. Id.
¶ 185. The change was not submitted for approval to the
Administrative Contracting Officer. Id. ¶¶
180, 186. Mr. Hutchins, who was “acting Procurement and
Subcontracts Director . . . at Kandahar Air Field” at
the time, alleges that he was repeatedly told by Vice
President Robinson that the LOGCAP IV contract had not been
changed and that the Administrative Contracting Officer had
been informed of the change in practice. Id.
¶¶ 193, 191. Mr. Hutchins objected, telling Ms.
Robinson that the Administrative Contracting Officer did not
have the authority to change the terms of the contract.
Id. ¶ 192. Plaintiffs allege that DynCorp made
“tens of millions of dollars more since it received the
extra one and a half percent commission on multiple
contracts.” Id. ¶ 189. Specifically,
“excess commission charges . . . exceeded $21, 000,
000” for (a) dining and facility contracts, (b) labor
services, (c) construction services, (d) miscellaneous, (e)
waste management services, and (f) vehicles and construction
leases. Id. ¶ 195.
responds that Plaintiffs “acknowledge that the alleged
change in commissions invoicing was brought to the attention
of the Administrative Contracting Officer by a [DynCorp]
employee (thereby defeating scienter) and that the bills were
paid by the government (thereby defeating
materiality).” DynCorp Mem. at 17.
Hutchins alleges that he was told by Linda Wrubbel, Regional
Human Resources Manager in Afghanistan, that a February 2012
report showed that more than 80% of the Subcontracts
Department “did not meet the job qualification
requirements of education and experience and were not
qualified for the positions for which they were hired.”
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 195*-97. Ms. Wrubbel had interviewed
the Supplier Management Director in Afghanistan, Dan Scott (who
resigned in 2012), for her report and was told that
“his hiring requirements were that the person have a
pulse, be able to string together a sentence in English and
be enthusiastic.” Id. ¶¶ 199-200.
Subhi complained to Human Resources about Supplier Management
officer personnel, specifically regarding Mr. Scott's
conduct. Ms. Wrubbel later told her that “90% of the
employees were not qualified, but [she] felt they could not
get rid of everyone.” Id. ¶ 202.
Plaintiffs also allege further deficiencies in personnel,
including various persons hired from the Philippines, India,
Bosnia, Nepal, and Kenya, who did not fulfill the hiring
criteria and many of whom could not speak English.
Id. ¶¶ 205-07. Plaintiffs allege that
“At Forward Operating Base Dwyer, more than 100
individuals were working in this manner in 2012.”
Id. ¶ 207. Plaintiffs do not identify which
employees were unqualified, nor which provisions of the
LOGCAP IV contract specified these employee qualifications.
notes that Plaintiffs provide no specifics and that they do
not “address whether the government understood or
consented to any allegedly unqualified hires as a necessary
and practical result of the contemporaneous surge of
personnel in the Afghanistan war zone.” DynCorp Mem. at