View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
1/105
567s9
10111213
14151617
..
Samuel L. B o Lead C o ~ l s b o ~ d ~ b o < t d comTX sa : 27775006440 North Central Expressway 'J:$-
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
2/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Sikorsky Aircraft Pays $2.9 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations,
available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-civ-273.html (last
visited July 18. 2009). The United States alleged that from 1991 to 2006,
Sikorsky knowingly installed armored plates . . . that had not been ballistically
tested as required under the contract. Id. "This settlement sends a message that
fraud, especially when it concerns the safety of our men and women in uniform,
cannot and will not be tolerated in Government contracts," said Michael F. Hertz,
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justices Civil Division.
"As demonstrated here, the Department . . .[is] committed to rooting out such fraud
and prosecuting it." Id.1
On behalf of the United States of America, Relator Darrol O. Olsen
(Olsen) files this Plaintiffs First Amended [qui tam] Complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A) against defendant LOCKHEED
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-civ-273.htmlhttp://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-civ-273.html8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
3/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the United States Air Force (USAF) during production of the "F-22 Raptor" (F-
22).
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. In 1991, Lockheed entered into a contract with the USAF to produce
the F-22.
2
StealthRADAR and visual non-observability--is a core feature of
that aircraft. The entire aircraft is designed around that feature. Numerous
components of the F-22 contribute to its planned stealth design, such as the
fighters contours and the coatings applied to its skin. The low observable
(LO) coatings applied to the F-22 are integral to its stealth, pilot safety, and
mission accomplishment. Lockheed emphasizes the importance of very low
observable stealth to the F-22 in materials such as the brochure attached hereto as
Exhibit A, downloaded on July 15 30, 2009 from Lockheeds web site at
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/F-22-Brochure.pdf.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/F-22-Brochure.pdfhttp://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/F-22-Brochure.pdf8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
4/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
knowingly use defective coatings. Based upon third-party reports, it appears that
the defective coatings have not been remedied through the present date, and that
Lockheed has never fully disclosed the low observables system defects to the
USAF.
3. Moreover, during the September 1995 through June 1999 period,
Lockheed misrepresented to the USAF that the coatings were passing stealth tests
and, thus, meeting contract specifications. In addition, Lockheed actively
concealed the stealth coatings failures from the USAF. For example, Lockheed
management often directed Olsen not to speak with the USAF about the coatings
problems. Indeed, on numerous occasions when Olsen protested the use of the
failed coatings and stated that Lockheed had to tell the USAF about the problems,
Lockheed manager David Trawinskis response was, Stay out of it." On one
occasion when Olsen objected to wasting money by purchasing more of the same
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
5/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
4. All that mattered to Lockheed was that the USAF thought that the
coatings were satisfactory, and that the F-22 program was timely proceeding so
that the USAF would continue to pay Lockheeds progress and milestone bills. On
information and belief, Lockheed continued to misrepresent and conceal the
problems with the F-22's coatings through at least October 2004 and likely to the
present date.
5. In effecting its fraud, Lockheed falsely certified that the coatings were
meeting stealth tests and, thus, meeting contract specifications, in order to get paid.
Lockheed made those certifications when presenting the progress bills and
milestone bills for payment to the USAF. In doing so, Lockheed presented false
claims to an agency of the United States for payment in violation of 31 U.S.C.
3729(a)(1)(A), (B), and (G), or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(2) and (7).
6. Further, on information and belief, since the entire F-22 is designed
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
6/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
incurred by the USAF due to Lockheeds conscious or reckless use and application
of known defective stealth coatings.
7. Relator brings this lawsuit for damages suffered by the United States,
including principal, interest and penalties as a result of Lockheeds false and
fraudulent practices which violated the False Claims Act.
II. PARTIES
8. Relator Darrol O. Olsen is a Materials and Process Engineer
specializing in composites and low observablesstealthmaterials. Olsen was
employed in various capacities by Lockheed for a total of 18 years. 4 Because of
his expertise in stealth technology, Olsen worked from September 1995 to July
1999 on the F-22. In particular, Olsen worked nearly exclusively on the F-22's
coatings, which are essential to that fighters stealth capability. Olsen lives at
15205 South 4160 Road, Claremore, OK 74017.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
7/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
76108. (Lockheed Martin Corporation and its business unit(s), including LMAC,
are collectively referred to as Lockheed.)
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This is an action to recover damages and civil penalties on behalf of
the United States for defendants violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.
3729 et seq. under the 1991 contract between Lockheed and the USAF, an
agreement which continues through this date.
11. The FCA provides the United States District Courts exclusive
jurisdiction for actions brought thereunder.
12. Section 3732(a) provides that, "Any action under section 3730 may be
brought in any judicial district in which the defendant . . . can be found, resides,
transacts business, or in which any act proscribed by section 3729 occurred."
Lockheed, through its business unit LMAC, is the prime contractor for the 1991
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
8/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
be extended. 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(3). If the United States declines to intervene,
the Relator can proceed on the governments behalf. 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(4).
IV. FCA'S SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
14. Section 3729 of the FCA provides:
(a) Liability for certain acts.
(1) In general. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who--
(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a
false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or
used, a false record or statement material to a false
or fraudulent claim;
* * *
(G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
9/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less
than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, as adjusted by the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461
note; Public Law 104-410), plus 3 times the amount of damages
which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.
31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A), (B), and (G) (As amended May 20, 2009,
FRAUD ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2009, 111 P.L. 21
4(a); 123 Stat. 1617 [S. 386]).5
15. Pursuant to Section 3729(b)(2) of the FCA, a "claim":
(A) means any request or demand, whether under a contract or
otherwise, for money or property and whether or not the United
States has title to the money or property, that--
5
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
10/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(i) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the
United States; or
(ii) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the
money or property is to be spent or used on the
Government's behalf or to advance a Government
program or interest, and if the United States
Government
(I) provides or has provided any portion of the money
or property requested or demanded; or
(II) will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other
recipient for any portion of the money or property
which is requested or demanded; and
(B) does not include requests or demands for money or property
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
11/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(2) (As amended May 20, 2009, FRAUD
ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2009, 111 P.L. 21 4(a);
123 Stat. 1617 [S. 386]).6
V. REGULATIONS
16. Government contracting is controlled by the Federal Acquisitions
Regulation (FAR) promulgated by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council. 41
U.S.C. 421(c)(1). FAR sets forth the requirements binding the executive
agencies of the United States and all contractors that provide goods and services to
those agencies. 48 C.F.R. 1.101 et seq. Defendants violations of the FCA
specifically involve defense contracting, making relevant the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), promulgated by the Department of
Defense (DoD). 41 U.S.C. 421(c)(2); see also 48 C.F.R. 201.301(a) (DoD
implements and supplements the FAR through the DFARS).
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
12/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
a) 48 C.F.R. 52.212-4(q) ("the Contractor shall comply with all
applicable Federal . . . laws . . . and regulations applicable to its
performance under this contract.");
b) 48 C.F.R. 52.212-4(a) ("The Contractor shall only tender for
acceptance those items that conform to the requirements of this
contract.");
c) 48 C.F.R. 52.246-1 ("the Contractor is responsible for
performing . . . all inspections and tests necessary to
substantiate that the supplies or services . . . conform to contract
requirements . . . .");
d) 48 C.F.R. 52.212-4(o) ("the Contractor warrants and implies
that the items delivered hereunder are merchantable and fit for
use for the particular purpose described in this contract."); and
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
13/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
manner consistent with the need to fulfill the production
plan]).7
18. Similarly, on information and belief, Lockheed certified as required
by 48 C.F.R. 52.232-5(c) in each progress bill that:
I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that
(1) The amounts requested are only for performance in
accordance with the specifications, terms, and conditions
of the contract; . . . . 8
19. Further, on information and belief, each progress bill submitted by
Lockheed to the USAF for payment was subject to certain other regulations,
including, but not limited to:
a) 48 C.F.R. 52.232-16(a) (each progress payment will not be
more frequently than monthly and will be computed "as 80% of
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
14/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
b) 48 C.F.R. 53.301-1443 (Form 1443: certifying that a progress
bill had been prepared "in accordance with" the subject
contract, "work reflected [in the progress bill had] been
performed" and "the quantities" of work done were "consistent
with the requirements" of the subject contract); and
c) 48 C.F.R. 52.232-16(c) (Contracting Officer "may reduce or
suspend progress payments" for the Contractors "failure to
comply with any material requirement of [the] contract").
20. On information and belief, upon purportedly achieving contract
milestones (or subparts thereof), Lockheed submitted milestone bills to the USAF
for payment that contained certifications similar to those required for progress
bills.
VI. FACTS
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
15/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
22. After active duty, Olsen returned to his clerical position at Lockheed
from 1975-79, with educational leaves of absences. In 1979, Olsen received a B.S.
in biosciences with a minor in chemistry.
23. In 1979, Lockheed hired Olsen as an engineer in Research
Engineering at its Burbank, California facility. There, Olsen performed R&D on
items supporting numerous programs,
24. Olsen worked in the nonmetallics (or composites) materials area in
research and development. In this capacity he developed new, advanced
composites materials (nonmetallics) and processes. Among other responsibilities,
he performed numerous types of materials testing. Olsen worked on new, state-of-
the-art technologies for existing and future programs.
25. From 1982-88, Olsen worked for Northrop Grumman Corporation
(Northrop). Olsen was assigned to the F-18 fighter and the B-2 stealth bomber,
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
16/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
27. In 1990, Olsen once again took a job with Northrop, focusing full-
time on the B-2 at the B-2 production facility in Palmdale, California.
Subsequently, he performed work at Edwards Air Force Base for B-2 flight tests.
Olsen worked on all stealth aspects of the B-2, including the LO coatings system
and repairs, composites structures, all materials and processes, testing, RCS issues
and diagnostics including off-site RCS testing, and research and development.
28. Olsen became an Engineer Specialist at Northrop. Due to his work
experience, Olsen had become a recognized expert on stealth coatings. While
Northrop had roughly 10,000 employees assigned to the B-2 program, only about
20 had Olsens level of knowledge about stealth materials. In fact, Northrop chose
Olsen out of approximately 3,000 engineer-candidates to be its Military Corporate
Field Representative and Advisor to the USAF on the B-2's stealth coatings,
advanced composites materials, repairs, all materials and processes, and on other
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
17/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Northrops integrity in ensuring the B-2's stealth, when he witnessed a radically
different attitude and conduct upon returning to Lockheed.
B. The F-22's Background
30. In the early 1970s, the USAF began studying concepts for an
Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15. The ATF concept would
evolve into the F-22. After a concept investigation phase, the USAF requested
proposals for the F-22 design in the autumn of 1985. Seven aerospace defense
contractors responded, including Lockheed. Each contractor was required to
include in its proposal a description of its stealth skills and experience.
31. Prior to selecting the winning design, the USAF suggested that the
contractors form teams so that the best industry expertise could be brought to bear
on such a technologically challenging project. Lockheed, Boeing and General
Dynamics formed one team. The Lockheed group agreed that each contractor
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
18/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
assigned the work, giving itself the lions share. Lockheed assumed responsibility
for most of the F-22's stealth capability, including the coatings.
C. The 1991 Lockheed Contract
33. On information and belief, Lockheed and the USAF in 1991 entered
into a fixed price contract that required Lockheedsubject to USAF approval and
consistent with the contract specificationsto deliver 648 F-22s at a cost of $86.6
billion or about $134 million per fighter.10
34. On information and belief, Lockheed submitted a certification with
the 1991 contract attesting that it would comply with the "Statement of Work,"
which was part of that agreement, including all low observables engineering
specifications. On information and belief, the "Statement of Work" set forth the
requirements for reflectivity (RCS signature) and reparability, among other
specifications.11
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
19/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
35. Further, on information and belief, Lockheed certified in the 1991
contract that it would comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including
those set forth in the Section V, supra.
D. The Importance of Stealth to the F-22
36. Stealth capability is a core feature of the F-22. The purpose of stealth
is to prevent the aircraft from being detected by ground-to-air or air-to-air
RADAR. The entire F-22 is designed around its stealth capability.
37. The observability of an aircraft by RADAR is referred to as its
RADAR Cross Section (RCS) or RADAR signature. The F-22's RCS should, at
most, indicate to a RADAR sender or yield a RADAR signature about the size of a
bumblebee.
38. The key to stealth is to minimize the RADAR return to the RADAR-
emitting source either by conducting, dissipating and reflecting the RADAR wave
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
20/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
15
12
13
14
16
17
39. The F-22's design requires the use of electrically conductive coatings
on its skin to conduct, dissipate and reflect away or absorb the RADAR waves.
40. In addition, RADAR absorbing material (RAM) is also used on the
F-22 to absorbrather than reflectRADAR waves; RAM component materials
include metallic particles that absorb electrical energy. RAM is typically applied
to "hot spots" on the structure and structural flex points, such as around antennas
and vertical supports.
41. The F-22 requires several different LO coatings to be applied to theskin of the aircraft. The initial F-22 requirement was for three primary layers of
coatings to be stacked together (before other LO materials were applied) in the
following order: The first coating is a primer designed to smooth and seal the
surface of the skin and promote adhesion of the second, conductive coating. The
second coating is a conductive coating consisting of metallic flakes intended to
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
21/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
weight severely impacts the F-22 and obstructs its mission capabilities by
impacting its range, speed, maneuverability, and its overall performance for
combat capabilities.
43. The proper functioning of the coatings and their respective repairs are
absolutely essential to the F-22's stealth capability. If not all coatings and their
repairs are effective, the stealth measures of the aircrafts design are negated,
resulting in serious compromise to the radar cross section. The F-22 then becomes
a highlighted target.
E. 1995-2004: Continuous and Undisclosed Coatings Problems
44. In September 1995, Olsen returned to Lockheed in the Materials and
Processes Engineering Group in Marietta, Georgia as a Senior Engineering
Specialist, the highest engineering grade below management. Olsen eventually
reported to Supervisor Richard Morrison and Manager David Trawinski. The
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
22/105
1
2
4
5
6
3
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
9
materials, their respective repairs, the effects of defects, assist in the collection of
RCS data for the SAS database, develop standard repairs specifications (these
documents would become the Air Force technical manual specifications in the
field), and formally validate and verify the F-22 Low Observables System to the
U.S. Air Force.
46. By late 1995, Olsen observed that the conductive coatings providedby CAAP CO. had significant widespread and visible problems, such as:
1. inconsistent batches (viscosity and weight inconsistency);2. clumping of metallic flakes;3. metallic flakes not binding and resulting in separating from the paint resin;4. paint resin with improper chemistry remaining soft;5. abrading damaged conductivity; and6. water or jet-related fluids damaged the coatings properties and RCS
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
23/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
resulting in significant RADAR cross section impacts. Olsen learned that those
coatings had not been formally tested according to industry protocols to thoroughly
identify their properties and verify acceptability for production.
47. The normal stages of formal testing are:
1) Lockheeds Engineering Testing Laboratory (ETL)
tests the coatings viscosity, weight and composition.
Additionally, ETL applies coatings to panels and checks
materials properties; including, but not limited to,
conductivity, thickness and smoothness;
2) Lockheeds RCS department tests reflectivity and
reparability by directing RADAR at the coatings on 6' x
3' football panels.12 Additionally an RCS signature is
captured at this point.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
24/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
testing from the compact range. RCS oversees the tests
and interprets the data.
4) RCS department tests reflectivity and reparability of the
coatings on mock-up sections of the F-22;
5) RCS department tests the reflectivity and reparability of
the coatings on an F-22 in a hanger; and
6) RCS department tests the reflectivity and reparability of
the coatings on an F-22 during ground and flight tests at
Edwards Air Force Base.
Under no circumstances should testing proceed to a subsequent stage if the
coatings have not passed the preceding stage. As Olsen would soon learn,
Lockheed paid no heed to that fundamental protocol.
48. In February 1996, Olsen directed that formal testing commence
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
25/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
repairs. For repairs, ETL would use the spray repair method or the brush/roller
repair method on damaged areas of the CAAP CO. and Boeing coatings. If the
original baseline coatings met required specifications, repairs using the same
coatings should have met the designated RCS signatures and other specifications.
49. Olsen witnessed each 1996 test. The repairs failed every time. The
initial baseline coatingsbefore any repairfailed by giving heightened RCS
signatures. In addition, coatings visibly degraded when exposed to fluids, such as
aircraft fuel, cleaning solvents and even waterto all of which an operational F-22
would routinely be exposed, destroying the conductivity resulting in unfavorable
RADAR signature impacts. The coatings also disfigured when touched. In
addition, repairs to those coatings failed. For instance, the repaired coatings
registered heightened RCS signatures as bad as the damaged, unrepaired coatings.
Despite those first-stage failures, Morrison and Trawinski directed, improperly,
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
26/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
51. On occasion, USAF personnel would attend the weekly, or other,
meetings; Lockheed knew when Air Force personnel would attend. On some such
occasions, a weekly meeting was specifically designed to mislead the Air Force by
a charade or false demonstration. When Air Force personnel attended meetings,
Morrison and Trawinski instructed Olsen not to speak with the USAF; nor did
Lockheed management disclose anything negative about the baseline coatings
materials. Rather, if discussing the coatings at all, Lockheed management falsely
reported to the USAF that the coatings were satisfactory and that any problems
were repairable.
52. Lockheed continued to order defective coating materials from CAAP
CO. and Boeing. Notably, and contrary to industry standards, Lockheed had no
back-up materials to consider as substitutes for the failing materials.
2. 1997: The Cycle Continues
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
27/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
media has reported that F-22 adhesivesthe glue intended to bind RAM to the
aircrafthave separated at engine inlets and been ingested into the aircraft
causing damage to or destroying engines of as many as 30 of the fighters. As the
project fell further behind schedule and tests were failed or skipped and test results
falsified, Mr. Olsen was forced to sign off on incomplete or completely blank F-22
Standard Repair Specifications. For instance, an aircraft accident investigation
report released March 27, 2008 indicated the separation of a six-by-eight-inch
piece of low observable material ingested into the right engine of an F-22 at Nellis
Air Force Base, Nevada on November 1, 2007 caused extensive damage to the
engine, totaling about $1.2 million. The separated piece included several layers of
coatings, which detached from the engines inlet during takeoff. This caused
pieces of first-stage engine fans to break away, causing additional damage to the
engine. The report cited the use of adhesives with poor cohesive strength and lack
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
28/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
54. Olsen expressed concern to Morrison and Trawinski that problems
with the CAAP CO. and Boeing coating materials and the low observables
materials system could not be corrected. Large orders of multiple batches for all
LO materials were purchased numerous times, but were not tested due to the
failures of the initial coatings, resulting in most of those materials expiring on the
shelf and then being discarded by special HazMat handling and disposal teams.
Olsen was ordered to stay the course. Further, Morrison and Trawinski
reemphasized that Olsen was never to discuss the coatings problems with the
USAF. Indeed, they instructed Olsen to have no communications at all with the
USAF.
55. On information and belief, Lockheed wanted to isolate Olsen and his
written and vocalized concerns about the coatings. On numerous occasions when
Olsen told Morrison and Trawinski that the coatings were failing, he was told to:
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
29/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Olsen) for an award due to purportedly demonstrating that "the brush and roll
restoration process meets the RCS requirements," and Lockheed presented this
award at a ceremony on November 11, 1997. See Exhibit B, 11/27/97 Brush
and Roll Repair Paint Team Memo from Trawinski to N.F. Kavanaugh.
However, the restoration process did not, and it never had met RCS requirements.
57. Just two weeks earlier, Olsen had informed Lockheed management of
the failing conductive coatings test results from the engineering laboratory:
1) The resin system shows dissolution with light wiping using the
[CAAP CO. conductive coating] spec cleaning solvent . . . .
2) Metal flakes do not bind to the resins system. Flakes are easily
removed when wiped with a cloth or abraded.
3) Light abrading with very fine sandpaper/polishing abrasives
remove the surface metal and affects electrical/RCS properties.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
30/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
concerned that the coatings and repairs were working, when they were
actually in a complete failure mode. In fact, five months later, Morrison
instructed Olsen to start over the process, for which Lockheed had given
Olsen the award, because the process continued to fail. See Exhibit D,
3/26/98 Smart Silver Paint Repair Plan Memo from Morrison to
Olsen.
58. On information and belief, the USAF attended the award ceremony.
Olsen was present, as required, but he refused to participate in the sham ceremony,
declining to go forward to accept the award.
59. Sham awards notwithstanding, the stealth coatings project continued
its failures.
3. 1998: "No One Cares. We've Got to Meet Milestones."
60. The coatings problems did not abate. On information and belief,
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
31/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
61. In early 1998, Olsen was directed to make a large order of all Low
Observables materials in sets of about 10 to 20 each, to support the
S.M.A.R.T Low Observables Testing Program. Olsen went to Trawinski to
again press his concerns about the inability of the initial first coatings to
satisfy the contract specifications. Trawinskis response was: "No one cares.
We've got to meet the milestones. Olsen was ordered to purchase these
massive amounts anyway. In other words, Trawinski was only interested in
the flow of payments from the USAF and the appearance of timely project
progress.13 Olsen stated he would make these purchases only if ordered to
do so. Trawinski said, That is an order.
62. Olsen persisted. In a March 1998 meeting with Morrison and
Trawinski, Olsen told them that: "If you dont allow me to fix it [the coating
problem by replacing the vendors], then a year from now the plane will be in the
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
32/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
addition to continuing to order, purchase and test materials Lockheed knew had
and would continue to fail, Lockheed ordered and purchased costly, short shelf-life
low observables materials prematurely in order to provide misleading documentary
support for false progress and milestone claims. That is, even though Lockheed
had not progressed to the stage where it needed these materials, and even though
the shelf life of the materials would expire before Lockheed was ready to use
themif ever, Lockheed ordered and purchased such materials in order to falsely
appear to have reached the milestone accomplishment.
63. As part of the LO materials protocol, Lockheed was required to
Validate and Verify the reparability of the LO materials. This protocol,
generally, required that the repairs be successfully conducted under laboratory
conditions twenty (20) times in sequence, without a single failure. When Air Force
representatives attempted to repair LO defects, they consistently failed in their
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
33/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
64. On July 2, 1998, ETL issued another test report of coatings failures on
football panel tests.15 Olsen wrote a note on the report and forwarded it to
Morrison: "Rich- Another report showing flake loss & resin softening. Does this
bother you? Morrison responded: "No - because RCS of repair OK & Yes -
because we need to soak a spot on football panel w/topcoat & measure RCS. See
Exhibit F, 7/2/98 Testing of Lot OP-91 5PTMRL04 __ Paint, SEM
Evaluation Memo from L.M. Campbell to Olsen. Besides misstating what the
report showedthe RCS of the repairs were not OKMorrison did not address
the basic problem that the coatings were bad out of the suppliers drums. Repairs
to a coating are made with the same coating material. The problems with the
coatings were the coatings themselves, not application processes. Thus, repair
applications of the same bad coatings could not remedy problems with the bad
coatings, which had failed all materials testing. An obvious solution was to look
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
34/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
recounted that: "Per Rich Morrisons direction, I have asked RCS Engineering to
determine how much degradation to the coating electricals is acceptable. Their
response was no degradation can be permitted. See Exhibit G, 8/11/98
Engineering Test Lab Results on 5PTMRL04 TY-1 Conductive Paint Memo
from Olsen to Trawinski and Morrison. Rich Morrison had directed Olsen to
ask RCS Engineering to reduce the RCS signature requirements below contractual
requirements, so that the Low Observables materials would appear to pass.
Morrison wanted to modify the RCS requirement so that the failing coatings and
repairs would pass. Instead of using a Low Observable material that performed as
intended and required, Morrison wrongfully pressured RCS Engineering to change
the RCS signature [test] requirement so the failing, defective LO materials would
falsely appear to be within specifications.
66. Notwithstanding the consistent stream of failures and the lack of
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
35/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
L.O. Maintainability Group Brush/Roll Status, Presentation, Rich
Morrison. Morrisons presentation showed the coatings meeting requirements
with optimized products, and passing most tests. Afterwards, Olsen spoke with
Ryan and Michael and asked how Morrison could report that the coatings were
passing. They jointly responded that they were going to "let Morrison hang
himself".
67. As they had before, the coatings failed after that meeting. CAAP
CO.s conductive coating remained inconsistent in makeup, weight, viscosity and
visual characteristics from batch to batch. Metallic flakes clumped together.
Rubbing with a soft cloth abraded the conductive coating, released the metallic
flakes, destroyed the coatings electrical properties and left a gummy resin. F-22
specification cleaning solvents, jet fuel, cooling fluids, water, and other liquids all
similarly damaged the coating. Boeings topcoat coating was unstable as to its
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
36/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
such a conclusion was false, and not supported by the test. Morrison told him: "It
is all political, stay out of it."
69. No matter how many tests were performed or at what stage they were
performed, the coatings continued to fail tests. In a December 9, 1998, work
schedule entitled "[redacted] Paint & Topcoat Repair Schedule - No. 13", Olsen
noted that "BASELINE COATINGS FAILED RCS RANGE TESTING" AND
"[redacted] PAINT MATL. PROBLEMS. ALL TESTING ON HOLD FOR
TESTING OF PRODUCTION MATL." See Exhibit I, 12/09/98 __ Paint and
Topcoat Repair Schedule No. 13.
70. On information and belief, throughout 1998, Lockheed continued to
defraud the USAF about the coatings failures to keep progress and milestone
payments flowing, and continued to convey the misimpression that the F-22 was
making timely progress in the stealth coatings issues. In fact, rather than moving
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
37/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the same failing results. See Exhibit K, 2/4/99 5PTMRL04 TY-1 __Paint
Repair History. A February 11, 199 schedule directly shows that the F-22 L.O.
baseline coatings and repairs continued to fail all tests. See Exhibit L, 2/11/99
__ Paint and Topcoat Repair Schedule No. 15. Indeed, the coatings failures
were so undeniable that even a Trawinski schedule entitled "F-22 [redacted] Paint
Implementation," dated April 1, 1999, records numerous failed tests. See Exhibit
M. On information and belief, Lockheed never shared those failed test results with
the USAF.
72. In 1999, Lockheed began using more conductive coatings from its
LMAC business unit. By June of that year, Lockheed ceased using the CAAP CO.
conductive coating altogether. On information and belief, the problems with that
defective product had become so obvious that Lockheed believed that it could not
hide its failures any longer.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
38/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
pounds to an aircraft designed to be ultra-light, in which mere ounces can make a
significant difference. Moreover, with reparability failures unabated, additional
layers of primers and other coatings dramatically increase reliability and
maintainability (R&M) problems. Unsurprisingly, the media have reported, at
least as late as 2006 that R&M man-hours and materials for the aircrafts crucial
low observables characteristics have increased to as much as three times acceptable
rates.
74. In an attempt to make the conductive coating work, Lockheed
increased its thickness, adding, on information and belief, 200 pounds to the
aircraft. This new, thicker conductive coating was also found to be easily damaged
by fluids and therefore, was over coated with several layers of primer (which did
not meet engineering requirements), adding even more weight.
75. Until Olsen took medical leave in July 1999, the CAAP CO.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
39/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ever truthfully disclose to the USAF that the coatings were defective, rendering the
stealth attribute a failure.
76. In addition, the LO materials contained hazardous chemicals
forbidden by the contract and by law, and such hazardous materials were handled
irresponsibly and even illegally. The composition of LO materials contravened
the F-22 contract, because they contained Diisocyanate chemicals which were not
permitted by the contract.16 Isocyanates are harmful to living tissue. They are
16Diisocyanates are a group of low-molecular-weight aromatic and aliphatic
compounds. The most common of these are toluene diisocyanate (TDI),methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI), and hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI). .. . They are widely used in the manufacture of flexible and rigid foams, fibers,coatings such as paints and varnishes, and elastomers. Diisocyanates areincreasingly used in the automobile industry, auto body repair, and building
insulation materials. In this report, diisocyanates as a group will be referred to asisocyanates. . . .
TDI and other isocyanates are powerful irritants to the mucous membranes
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
40/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
toxic and exposure is known to result in hypersensitivity pneumonitis as well as
occupational asthma in humans, both through inhalation exposure and dermal
contact. Mr. Olsen was ordered to keep this fact secret from the Air Force, as the
violation could lead to cancellation of the contract by the Air Force.
77. In addition, hazardous materials were handled illegally. On
information and belief, throughout the complete LO testing program, Morrison and
Trawinski had numerous coatings shipments delivered to their homes and those of
other employees. This was done to avoid any unexpected governmental inspection
or discovery of the receipt and use of those defective, toxic materials.
Management secretly circumvented the Lockheed company HazMat building
which housed and controlled all toxic, controlled materials, thus avoiding
documentation of Lockheeds receipt, its entry of the toxic substances in its books,
and its assignment of the required company tracking and control of hazardous
materials. Olsen refused to participate in that scheme which violated an assortmentof company policies and relevant laws dealing with dangerous, toxic substances.
78 I f M i i f d Ol f h f h h h d d
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
41/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
HazMat LO coatings shipments would be delivered to Olsens home. Olsen
immediately refused to participate in the illegal scheme and insisted that Morrison
call and stop shipments to Olsens home. Morrison responded that Olsen was not
a team player, and if youre not a team player you can be replaced. Morrison
continued to have the toxic HazMat LO materials sent to his own and other
employees homes. When they received the illegal materials, they smuggled them
past the Lockheed company security guards and stored them in the engineering
offices of the F-22 engineering building.
79. The conductive coating had been modified numerous times and as a
result was no longer in conformance with the Lockheed HazMat material control
regulation requirements; the initial assigned Lockheed company HazMat control
number was thus void, making this a nonconforming toxic HazMat material inside
Lockheed Corporation facilities. In addition, the toxic HazMat LO materials were
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
42/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
in the emission of the toxic HazMat LO materials chemicals into the air, exposing
countless people in the company and surrounding community to dangerous air.
Lockheed management knew of the unlawful presence of mercury and
diisocyanates and mercury in th4 components of the L.O. materials. Lockheed
management concealed the unlawful presence of these controlled chemicals from
the USAF, Lockheed employees, and the surrounding communities. Lockheed
concealed this information because its disclosure would have resulted in the
shutdown of the F-22 program, enormous expense, and significant delaylikely
years.
80. At no time during Olsens tenure at Lockheed did he see any
indication that Lockheed informed the USAF about low observables baseline
coatings failures or repairs failures. Further, during Olsens tenure at Lockheed,
the LMAC coatings never satisfied or passed the reflectivity and reparability tests.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
43/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
82. By the time of Olsens termination, the stealth coatings project was
secretly years behind schedule, poorly performing and out of specifications,
without required waivers or tailorings.
5. 2000-2004: Failures and Misrepresentations Continue [throughpresent]
83. Following Olsens July 1999 departure and at least through October
2004, if not through the present, the LMAC conductive coatings and the Boeing
topcoat coatings have failed. The LMAC conductive coating failed, consistently,
the reparability tests at least through October 2004.
17
By the same token, at least
through October 2004, the Boeing topcoat coatings infrared properties continued
to fail and its coloring, important for visual stealth, was inconsistent.18
84. The LMAC conductive coatings only passed baseline coating
reflectivity tests when Lockheed applied six (6) times the thickness, thereby adding
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
44/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
of the F-22s weight-gain. On information and belief, Lockheed has had to apply
extra RAM (which is significantly heavier than conductive paint) to cover failing
conductive gap filler and LO coatings over gaps, seams and structural flex points.
On information and belief, the six (6) times additional thickness of conductive
coating added hundreds of pounds to the super-cruiser, and the extra RAM has
burdened the F-22 with approximately four hundred (400) more pounds, covering
up failure and impacting the mission.
85. The extremely thick coatings have proved brittle, resulting in
cracking, fissures and heightened RCS. In short, the conductive coatingswhich
were supposed to be paper thin and light by designhave so materially failed that,
on information and belief, the F-22's velocity and maneuverability have been
compromised by the added weight.
86. The extra coatings were not merely inefficient cover-ups; they were
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
45/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
87. However, the LO conductive gap filler coatings were substandard,
were cracking, and were failing relatively quickly in testingto the extent they
were tested at all. Even though these coatings were not thoroughly tested to prove
their integrity for aircraft service, and were failing when tested with aircraft fluids
and water, they were put on production aircraft anyway.
88. As a direct result of the expectation that the gap filler material would
crack, Materials and Processes Engineering management decided to modify the
formulation of the gap filler material by adding more conductive filler to the failing
F-22 Specification gap filler material. Their reasoning was that adding excess
filler would make it even more conductive and thus, when the material cracked, as
Lockheed expected it would, the RCS signature would be less observable. The
result, however, was that the extra conductive filler exacerbated cracking in the
gap filler. The excessively thick LO coatings over the gap filler resulted in greater
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
46/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
would not approve adding even one pound to the aircraft. The F-22 was already
overweight when these hundreds of pounds were added, and any additional weight
would destroy the mission fitness and performance of this new advanced
technology fighter. Moreover, the cracked primers/conductive coating/top coat
paint system and the underlying cracked highly conductive gap filler destroys the
low observability of the RCS signature, essentially painting a bulls-eye target on
the aircraft in place of the intended low observable shroud. As a direct result,
internal corrosion has occurred; the failure of the Low Observables System has
allowed environmental exposure, resulting in internal corrosion. This has now
been documented in the media, including the Salt Lake Tribune.
90. Olsen learned from Lockheed engineering test lab personnel and
engineers in 2005 that LO coatings problems and failures were persisting. Olsen
learned that despite increasing the LO conductive coating thickness to six times the
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
47/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
91 On information and belief, Lockheed at least through October 2004
and likely to the present date has never truthfully disclosed to the USAF that the
stealth coatings continually, for years, had failed the requisite tests. On
information and belief, at least through October 2004, if not the present, the stealth
coatings program had been delayed many years and hundreds of millions of dollars
have been wasted (1) on the process and (2) on the defective aircraft. Our country
does not have the stealth fighter for which it paid.
F. Incentives to Deceive
92. On information and belief, Lockheed knew that by fraudulently
misleading the USAF about the coatings failures, it would continue to receive (1)
progress and (2) milestone payments, and that the concealment would convey the
impression that the F-22 program was timely progressing. On information and
belief, Lockheed had substantial incentives to lie to the USAF about the defective
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
48/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
deployed field operations was a false claim, including but not limited to the
following:
a. From at least as early as late 1995, when Lockheed had not
formally tested the coatings although it should have done so, and
subsequently, when Lockheed falsely represented that the coatings had
passed testing, each of Lockheeds certifications, pursuant to 48 C.F.R.
52.232-5c, in each progress bill, that [t]he amounts requested are only for
performance in accordance with the specifications, terms and conditions of
the contract, constitutes a false statement, and each progress bill containing
such certification constitutes a false claim and a false record under the False
Claims Act. All progress payment requests since this time are affected
because low observability is fundamental to the F-22s purpose and function.
b. From at least as early as late 1995, when Lockheed had not
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
49/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
constituted a false claim under the False Claims Act. All progress payment
requests since this time are affected because low observability is
fundamental to the F-22s purpose and function.
c. From at least as early as late 1995, when Lockheed had not
formally tested the coatings although it should have done so, and
subsequently, when Lockheed falsely represented that the coatings had
passed testing, each milestone bill submitted by Lockheed constituted a false
claim and each certification in support of such milestone bill, consistent with
those described above in paragraphs 17-20, constituted a false statement and
a false record pursuant to the False Claims Act. All milestone payment
requests since this time are affected because low observability is
fundamental to the F-22s purpose and function.
94. Lockheeds statements to USAF representatives at weekly meetings of
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
50/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
95. Lockheeds public statements at the November 11, 1997 award
ceremony attended by the USAF that the brush and roll restoration process meets
the RCS requirements constitute false statements under the False Claims Act.
96. Morrisons statement in his September 24, 1998 presentation to the
Low Observables Steering Group, attended by the USAF, that the coatings were
meeting specifications constituted false statements under the False Claims Act.
See Exhibit H.
97. Lockheeds statements made at the insistence of Morrison in the
October 1, 1998 report that the coatings had registered stable on all tests
constituted false statements and false records under the False Claims Act.
98. Lockheeds failure to disclose the facts in the February 4, 1999
Management Presentation Document entitled Items that Directly Contribute to
[redacted] Restoration Problems and the April 1, 1999 document entitled F-22
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
51/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
100. Documents falsely stating or implying that Lockheed had used
prematurely purchased, short shelf-life paints or other materials, which were in fact
stored, discarded, or diverted to other uses, constitute false records and false claims
pursuant to the False Claims Act. Additionally, requests for payment for such
materials constituted false claims under the False Claims Act.
101. Damages to the United States include all of the money expended
for years in pursuing and testing wholly inappropriate, defective LO materials
leading to defective LO stealth for the entire F-22 program. Because stealth is
the primary, intrinsic advantage of the F-22 concept, and the defective stealth
materials do not perform as required, damages should include the entire cost
of the F-22 aircraft manufactured through this dateif not the entire cost,
alternatively, the entire cost of incorporating the defective stealth materials
into the aircraft structure and all of the related costs of the LO development
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
52/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
minimally, $50 million times the 183 aircraft acknowledged as manufactured
or "in process." The LO materials didn't work in development phases, were
falsely represented as performing and arent working per specifications today.
The current LO materials are not spec for the program, dont work and will
never perform as intended.
103. If the damages include remediation of all F-22 aircraft, on
information and belief the costs of disassembling each F-22, stripping off all
LO materials, developing proper LO materials that would satisfy the
specifications and the F-22 mission, reapplying a functional LO stealth
externality, and reassembling each aircraft would cost no less than $50 million
per F-22. This alternative damages calculation is in addition to the huge
losses from the fraudulent R&D and processing of defective LO materials that
currently plague the F-22 fleet.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
53/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE:
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A) (or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1))
105. Relator re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 104 of this complaint.
106. This is a claim for treble damages, civil penalties and other relief
under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(A) (or former 31 U.S.C.
3729(a)(1)).
107. Defendant Lockheed used coatings on the F-22 that it knew were
deficient. Olsen had direct, personal knowledge of that fact.
108. Lockheed knowingly violated the regulations in FAR and DFARS, of
certifications for the 1991 contract, of certifications in the progress bills, of
certifications in the milestone bills and of representations in other documents and
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
54/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
milestone bills to the USAF for payment in violation of 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(A)
(or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)).
110. On information and belief, the USAF paid the false or fraudulent
claims presented in the form of Lockheeds progress bills and milestone bills.
111. By reason of these payments of false or fraudulent claims, the United
States has been damaged in a substantial amount, entitling the United States to
multiple damages, penalties, attorneys fees and other relief under the FCA.
COUNT TWO:
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(B) (or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(2))
112. Relator re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 111 of this complaint.
113. This is a claim for treble damages and civil penalties under the False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(B) (or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(2)).
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
55/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
reparability tests and had otherwise met the contract specifications for the F-22
when in fact the coatings had continuously failed such tests and had not met
contract specifications.
116. On information and belief, by the wrongful uses of certifications in
the 1991 contract, of certifications in the progress bills, of certification in the
milestone bills and of representations in other documents and presentations,
Lockheed knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used false records or
statements material to false or fraudulent claims, in the form of progress bills and
milestone bills presented to the USAF for payment in violation of 31 U.S.C.
3729 (a)(1)(B) (or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(2)).
117. On information and belief, the USAF paid the false or fraudulent
claims presented in the form of defendants progress bills and milestone bills.
118. On information and belief, by reason of these payments of false or
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
56/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
COUNT THREE:
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(G) (or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7))
119. Relator re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations
made in paragraphs 1 through 118 of this complaint.
120. This is a claim for treble damages and civil penalties under the False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(G) (or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7)).
121. On information and belief, Lockheed used coatings on the F-22 that it
knew were deficient.
122. Lockheed knowingly violated the regulations in FAR and DFARS, of
certifications in the 1991 contract, of certifications in the progress bills, of
certifications in the milestone bills and of representations in other documents and
presentations. Lockheed, in order to obtain payment from the United States,
misrepresented to the USAF that the coatings had passed reflectivity and
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
57/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the form of progress bills and milestone bills to the USAF for payment in violation
of 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(G) (or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7)).
124. On information and belief, by those knowing violations, Lockheed
knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used false records and statements
material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government
or knowingly concealed or knowingly and improperly avoided or decreased its
obligation to the Government by concealing its existing, legal obligations to repay
the United States for the unearned money from payments for the defective coatings
from progress bills and milestone bills in violation of 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(G)
(or former 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7)).
125. On information and belief, by reason of Lockheeds conduct, the
United States has been damaged in a substantial amount, entitling the United States
to multiple damages, penalties, attorneys fees and other relief under the FCA.
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
58/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
or fraudulent information in connection with requests for
payment [including progress bills and milestone bills],
plus three (3) times the amount of the damages that the
United States has sustained, because of Lockheeds
unlawful actions from and after February 1996 when the
F-22 stealth coatings failed reflectivity and reparability
tests through the present date;19
C. Defendant also be directed to disgorge all sums by which
it has been enriched unjustly by its wrongful conduct;
D. Defendant be enjoined from concealing, removing,
encumbering or disposing of any assets which may be
required to pay all civil monetary penalties imposed by
the Court;
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
59/105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
F. Relator be awarded all costs of this action, including
statutory attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
3730(d).
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Relator Darrol
Olsen hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Relator/Plaintiff prays that this District Court enter
judgment on behalf of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the following:
a. Damages in the amount of three (3) times the actual
damages suffered by the United States Government as a
result of the Defendants conduct which violated the
False Claims Act, as well as all other relief available
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
60/105
5
10
15
1234
6
78
9
111213 14
1617
d. All other relief on behalf of the RelatorlPlaintiff or the
United States Government to which either may be justlyentitled, whether at law or in equity, which the DistrictCourt deems just and proper.
Dated: August 5, 2009UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex reI.Darrol OlsenRespectfully submitted:BoYD & ASSOCIATES AWGROUP
Samuel L. Boyd PhilIp E. BensonTX SBN: 02777 00 CA SBN: 138933Catherine C. Jobe Donald R. WarrenTX SBN: 10668280 7825 Fay Ave., Ste. 2006440 North Central Expressway La Jolla, CA 92037Suite 600 Telephone (858) 454-2877Dallas, Texas 75206 Facsimile (858) 454-5878
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
61/105
5
10
15
1
234
6
789
11 12
13
14
16
17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND DISCLOSUREOn or before September 27, 2007, a Disclosure Statement and exhibits were
served upon Mr. Paul J. Wogaman, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 601D St., NW, #9006, Washington, D.C. 20004, regarding Relator's complaints, theDefendant's violations and Relator's intention to file suit.
On this date, A u g u s t . . . . . . 5 ~ 2009, a copy of Relator's/Plaintiffs FirsAmended Complaint was formally served pursuant toCertified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, upon:Eric HolderAttorney General of the United StatesU.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20530-0001Mr. Paul J. Wogaman (Via Federal Express)Trial AttorneyU.S. Department of Justice601 D St., NW, #9006Washington, D.C. 20004
FRCP 4(i)(l )(b), vi
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
62/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
63/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
64/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
65/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
66/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
67/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
68/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
69/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
70/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
71/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
72/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
73/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
74/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
75/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
76/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
77/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
78/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
79/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
80/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
81/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
82/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
83/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
84/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
85/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
86/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
87/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
88/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
89/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
90/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
91/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
92/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
93/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
94/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
95/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
96/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
97/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
98/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
99/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
100/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
101/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
102/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
103/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
104/105
8/14/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Exhibits Filed 8 5 09 - Olsen F-22
105/105
Recommended