In April 2025, the Department of Justice announced that DRI Relays Inc., a manufacturer of electrical relays and sockets used on military platforms, agreed to pay $15.7 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations. According to the DOJ, between 2015 and 2021, under various Department of Defense contracts and subcontracts, DRI invoiced for military-grade electrical relays and sockets when it knew those parts had not met the testing requirements to be deemed military grade.
In January 2021, DRI’s parent company, TE Connectivity Corporation, disclosed to the Department of Defense that DRI had not conducted certain required tests on MIL-PRF-83536 relays and MIL-DTL-12883 sockets. The company cooperated with the government’s subsequent investigation. Even with that cooperation, the settlement reached $15.7 million, a figure that reflects the six-year span of the conduct and the seriousness with which the government treats failures in the defense supply chain.
“It is essential to the safety and operational readiness of our military that contractors comply with applicable military specifications,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth of the DOJ’s Civil Division. “Failures to adhere to established standards when providing military parts can place our Soldiers at significant risk and adversely impact the Army’s warfighting capabilities,” added a senior Army Criminal Investigation Division official.
Why Testing and Inspection Requirements Exist
Defense contracts do not simply require the delivery of a product. They require delivery of a product that meets specific, verified standards. For components used in weapons systems, aircraft, communications equipment, vehicles, and other military platforms, the government sets out detailed testing and inspection protocols that contractors must follow before certifying their goods as compliant.
Those requirements exist because the consequences of failure are not financial. They are operational and human. A relay that has not been tested to military specification may function fine in a commercial setting and fail under the stress and conditions of a combat environment. A part that passes visual inspection but skips required performance tests may not reveal its deficiencies until it is needed.
When a contractor submits an invoice certifying that required tests were performed and those tests were never conducted, or certifying that inspection data reflects actual results when it does not, every one of those certifications is a false claim under federal law.
How This Fraud Pattern Operates
False testing and inspection fraud in defense contracting takes several forms. For example, this could include:
- A contractor who simply does not conduct the required tests and certifies that it did. This is what the government alleged in the DRI case: that parts were invoiced as military grade despite the company’s knowledge that the mandatory testing had not been completed.
- Tests are conducted, but the results are altered. Records are falsified to show passing results when the actual data showed failures, or when no data existed at all. In one case involving a government Air Force repair contract, Teledyne allegedly altered and destroyed records; the government recovered $4.75 million.
- Product substitution is also a related pattern. A contractor wins a contract to supply components meeting specific material or performance standards, then delivers lower-grade parts while certifying them as compliant. The substitution may be driven by cost savings, supply chain shortcuts, or the decision to use components from unapproved sources. A notable example involved allegations that Northrop Grumman installed defective microelectronic parts in military satellites; that case settled for $325 million.
In all of these scenarios, the fraud is made possible by the false documentation attached to it. The invoice, the test report, and the certificate of conformance. That paperwork is what the government relies on when it pays.
The Stakes Are Different in Defense Contracting
The False Claims Act applies to any knowing misrepresentation made in connection with a claim for federal payment. In healthcare, that typically means billing for services not rendered or not medically necessary. In defense contracting, the same legal framework applies, but the conduct being covered up often has implications that extend beyond wasted dollars.
As the DOJ has noted, fraud in military procurement not only wastes government funds but also risks depriving servicemembers of critical resources and creating potential national security risks. When a component in a weapons system or aircraft has not been tested to the standards the contract required, the people operating that equipment may not know it is not what it was represented to be.
This is why the DOJ, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Army Criminal Investigation Division treat these cases as a priority alongside financial fraud, and why the False Claims Act’s treble damages provision, the government’s ability to recover up to three times the amount it was wrongfully billed, applies with full force to testing and specification fraud.
Who Can Report This Fraud?
The people who best know when testing has not been conducted are the people who work in the facilities where it should have been conducted. Quality control engineers who are aware that the required tests were skipped. Lab technicians who know that the documentation attached to a shipment does not reflect actual test results. Program managers who received directives to certify parts as compliant before testing was complete. Employees who raised concerns internally and were told to proceed anyway.
Any of these individuals may have the direct, personal knowledge needed to support a False Claims Act qui tam lawsuit. When a case succeeds, the whistleblower may be eligible to receive a portion of the government’s recovery as compensation for coming forward. The False Claims Act also protects relators from retaliation, and a whistleblower attorney can advise on those protections before any action is taken.
Speak with a Whistleblower Attorney Before Taking Any Steps
Defense contracting fraud cases are technically detailed, and the filing requirements under the False Claims Act are specific. Working with an experienced whistleblower attorney before taking any action protects both the integrity of your claim and your legal rights.
Contact Keller Grover today to speak with a whistleblower attorney about what you have observed. Our team handles False Claims Act cases and can walk you through your options before you take any other steps.