On September 18, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a civil False Claims Act (“FCA”) settlement against a New Jersey shipbuilder to resolve allegations that it improperly employed unauthorized workers to work on Navy ships.  The settlement, which exceeded $4 million, is the second this year involving government contractors alleged to have employed unauthorized workers in violation of FAR 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification.  With immigration enforcement squarely at the center of the current administration’s domestic agenda, government contractors should be mindful of this enforcement theory and take appropriate steps to ensure compliance and protect themselves from a costly FCA claim. 

FAR 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification

FAR 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification, requires contractors and subcontractors to verify their employees’ employment eligibility in the federal E-Verify database.  E-Verify is an internet-based system that compares information entered by an employer from an employee’s Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to records available to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to confirm employment eligibility. 

When included in a government contract or subcontract, FAR 52.222-54 creates a general obligation for contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of (1) all new employees working within the United States (regardless of whether they are assigned to the relevant government contracts) and (2) any employee who will be assigned to the relevant government contracts (new hire or otherwise).  As an alternative to requirement (2), the contractor may elect to verify all existing employees rather than just those employees assigned to the government contract.

FAR 52.222-54 must be included in all government contracts that exceed $150,000, except those that are (1) only for work that will be performed outside the United States; (2) for a period of less than 120 days; or (3) only for commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) items, COTS items with minor modifications, items that would be COTS if they were not bulk cargo, or commercial services associated with COTS items.  FAR 22.1803. 

When FAR 52.222-54 is included in a prime contract, contractors are often required to flow down the requirements to subcontractors.  Specifically, the requirements in FAR 52.222-54 must be included in all subcontracts for non-COTS services or construction that (1) have a value of more than $3,500 and (2) include work performed in the United States.  This same flow down requirement and criteria also apply to subcontractors with regard to their lower-tier contracts.

The 2025 FCA Settlements

In the year to date, DOJ has announced two civil FCA settlements to resolve allegations that contractors billed for labor provided by workers who were not eligible to work in the United States.  Both cases involved shipbuilders and highlighted the growing risks facing contractors who rely on labor based in the United States to perform their government contracts.

First, on January 16, 2025, DOJ announced a roughly $1 million settlement, half of which was restitution, with a Louisiana-based shipyard to resolve allegations that it had knowingly billed the Coast Guard for labor performed by employees that were ineligible to work in the United States.  DOJ alleged that even though the shipbuilder was contractually required to confirm that its employees were eligible to work in the United States (via FAR 52.222-54), the shipbuilder failed to comply with the requirement and instead “knowingly employed ineligible workers” to perform the contract.

Second, on September 18, 2025, DOJ announced an over $4 million settlement, again half of which was restitution, with a New Jersey-based drydock and ship repair company to resolve allegations that it used multiple subcontractors that employed individuals who were not authorized to work in the United States.  DOJ alleged that the company Risk Manager owned and/or controlled the subcontractors and was aware that they were employing unauthorized workers who performed work on United States ships in violation of the E-Verify requirements.  The company Risk Manager separately pled guilty to a criminal charge of knowingly hiring and continuing to employ unauthorized workers in the United States.

Practical Guidance for Government Contractors

Although it remains to be seen whether these actions are the beginning of a larger trend, contractors can be taking steps now to mitigate their potential FCA risks.

First, contractors should understand whether – and to what extent – E-Verify requirements apply to their workforce.  As a general matter, FAR 52.222-54 applies broadly to non-COTS U.S. Government contractors, subcontractors, and lower-tier contracts performing work inside the United States.  For government contractors who perform covered work at any tier, these resolutions highlight the importance of identifying contracts that are subject to E-Verify requirements and ensuring familiarity with those provisions.

Second, contractors bound by FAR 52.222-54 should ensure that they are enrolled in E-Verify and actively maintaining their registrations.  Although contractors should take seriously their obligation to verify all new employees (whether those employees are working on government contracts or not), the above-referenced resolutions involved unauthorized workers who actually worked on government contracts.  Accordingly, contractors should be especially diligent about entering into E-Verify any employees that the contractor assigns to a government contract, both at the outset of the contract and throughout performance.

Third, impacted contractors should take precautions to enforce the requirements with subcontractors and lower-tier contractors.  Flowing down FAR 52.222-54 is essential, but not always sufficient.  Companies may face liability for the violations of their subcontractors if they ignore obvious red flags about their subcontractors’ compliance with these requirements.

Photo of Michael Granston Michael Granston

Michael Granston, Chair of Covington’s False Claims Act Investigations and Litigation practice, spent nearly three decades at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and for the last six years served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, the highest-ranking career employee in the Civil Division.

Michael…

Michael Granston, Chair of Covington’s False Claims Act Investigations and Litigation practice, spent nearly three decades at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and for the last six years served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, the highest-ranking career employee in the Civil Division.

Michael advanced through the ranks within the Civil Fraud Section, beginning his DOJ career as a Trial Attorney, and eventually serving as Director from 2013 to 2019. As Director, he oversaw the Department’s pursuit of False Claims Act (“FCA”) investigations and litigation, as well as other actions relating to fraud, kickbacks, and conflicts of interest.

Michael most recently served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General starting in 2019. In this capacity, he managed not only the Civil Fraud Section but also all aspects of the Commercial Litigation Branch, including litigation in areas such as international trade, intellectual property, bankruptcy, and bid protests.

During his tenure at DOJ, Michael supervised many of the most significant FCA matters while playing a primary role in formulating the Department’s FCA priorities and policies. He spearheaded DOJ’s approach to major statutory changes in 2009 and 2010 to the FCA and its qui tam provisions. He also was instrumental in developing various DOJ guidance on the investigation and handling of FCA matters, including most notably a 2018 memorandum that clarified when DOJ should consider dismissing non-intervened whistleblower suits—commonly referred to as the “Granston Memorandum.” Michael helped identify and advance key enforcement priorities under the FCA across multiple administrations, including fraud involving prescription opioids, the Medicare Part C and D programs, the Anti-Kickback and Stark Statutes, government contracts and grants, cybersecurity issues, and trade and customs laws.

Michael also served as the Civil Division’s Chief Ethics Officer and was a member of the State Secrets Review Committee.

Photo of Peter B. Hutt II Peter B. Hutt II

Peter Hutt represents government contractors in False Claims Act and fraud matters, and accounting, cost, and pricing disputes and counseling matters.

Peter is a leading False Claims Act lawyer in the government contracts arena. He has represented contractors for 35 years in matters…

Peter Hutt represents government contractors in False Claims Act and fraud matters, and accounting, cost, and pricing disputes and counseling matters.

Peter is a leading False Claims Act lawyer in the government contracts arena. He has represented contractors for 35 years in matters alleging cybersecurity noncompliance; cost mischarging; CAS violations; quality assurance deficiencies; substandard products and services; defective pricing; health care fraud; price reduction issues; inadequate subcontractor oversight; and reverse false claims. He has testified before Congress concerning the False Claims Act, and is a thought leader in the field. Peter also conducts internal investigations and advises clients on whether and how to make disclosures of potential wrongdoing.

Peter also represents contractors and grantees in accounting, cost, and pricing matters, and other contract and grant matters. He has addressed issues concerning pensions and post-retirement benefits; TINA and defective pricing; alleged CAS violations; cost accounting practice changes; alleged charging of unallowable and expressly unallowable costs; terminations; contract financing; price reduction clause issues; subcontracting and supply chain compliance; specialty metals compliance; and small business and DBE compliance. He has litigated cost, accounting, and contract breach matters in the Court of Federal Claims and the ASBCA.

Peter is recognized for his work both in False Claims Act and government contract disputes by Chambers USA, which notes that “He is absolutely outstanding. He is thoughtful and client-focused.” Chambers also notes that “Peter’s judgment and problem solving ability is unique. He is a very good False Claims Act lawyer.”

Photo of Michael Wagner Michael Wagner

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and…

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and enforcement actions.

Mike regularly represents contractors in federal and state compliance and enforcement matters relating to a range of procurement laws and regulations. He has particular experience handling investigations and litigation brought under the civil False Claims Act, and he routinely counsels government contractors on mandatory and voluntary disclosure considerations under the FAR, DFARS, and related regulatory regimes. He also represents contractors in high-stakes suspension and debarment matters at the federal and state levels, and he has served as Co-Chair of the ABA Suspension & Debarment Committee and is principal editor of the American Bar Association’s Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension & Debarment (4th ed.) (2018).

Mike also has extensive experience representing companies pursuing and negotiating grants, cooperative agreements, and Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs). In this regard, he has particular familiarity with the semiconductor and clean energy industries, and he has devoted substantial time in recent years to advising clients on strategic considerations for pursuing opportunities under the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

In his counseling practice, Mike regularly advises government contractors and suppliers on best practices for managing the rapidly-evolving array of cybersecurity and supply chain security rules and requirements. In particular, he helps companies assess and navigate domestic preference and country-of-origin requirements under the Buy American Act (BAA), Trade Agreements Act (TAA), Berry Amendment, and DOD Specialty Metals regulation. He also assists clients in managing product and information security considerations related to overseas manufacture and development of Information and Communication Technologies & Services (ICTS).

Mike serves on Covington’s Hiring Committee and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Summer Associate Program. He is a frequent writer and speaker on issues relating to procurement fraud and contractor responsibility, and he has served as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Photo of Terra White Fulham Terra White Fulham

Terra Fulham represents corporate and individual clients in complex litigations and investigations, with particular expertise in defending government contractors against allegations of fraud and False Claims Act violations. She has experience representing clients at all stages of internal and government investigations, including conducting…

Terra Fulham represents corporate and individual clients in complex litigations and investigations, with particular expertise in defending government contractors against allegations of fraud and False Claims Act violations. She has experience representing clients at all stages of internal and government investigations, including conducting witness interviews, managing government subpoena and CID responses, defending witnesses in government interviews, and advocating before government enforcement officials. She has represented clients in investigations and litigation brought under the False Claims Act, including matters alleging noncompliance with U.S. government cybersecurity regulations, small business fraud, quality assurance deficiencies, conflicts of interest, and cost mischarging. Terra also has experience with suspension and debarment matters, representing entities in such proceedings to ensure their continued eligibility to participate in federal programs.

She has also represented clients in a variety of litigation matters during motions practice, discovery, and final hearings.

Terra also maintains an active pro bono practice, with an emphasis on immigration-related impact litigation.

Photo of Michael Pierce Michael Pierce

Michael Pierce is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group. He assists clients on a broad range of government contracting issues, with an emphasis on claims, disputes, and investigations.

Mike has an…

Michael Pierce is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group. He assists clients on a broad range of government contracting issues, with an emphasis on claims, disputes, and investigations.

Mike has an active investigations practice. He has represented numerous government contractors in responding to civil investigative demands and subpoenas, in addition to helping clients assess potential exposure prior to receipt of government demands. He routinely conducts investigations related to the False Claims Act, including counselling government contractors on its disclosure obligations and mitigation measures.

Mike also represents contractors in a variety of claims and disputes, including prime-subcontractor disputes and debarment actions brought by federal and state entities. He has successfully assisted clients in mitigating the effects of terminations for default, defending defective pricing claims, and arbitrating disputes related to complex teaming agreements. Mike has advised leading contractors on numerous high-stakes issues—including allegations of providing latently defective parts—in disputes with primes, subcontractors, and the government.