A federal district court in New York City must now reconsider part of its decision to dismiss a former employee whistleblower’s complaint that an AECOM unit fraudulently billed the U.S. Army under a $1.9-billion contract it held for maintenance and support in Afghanistan, the U.S. appeals court in New York ruled Nov. 19.

该合同是由艾奕康科技的管理检修es business, which worked for federal clients butwas soldin early 2020 to a private equity consortium and now is a separate company called Amentum.

有争议的是，举报人宣称的欺诈行为是否根据《联邦虚假索赔法》，前AECOM财务主管Hassan Foreman是“重大的”，因为该公司没有被陆军惩罚alleged fraudulent actions他声称，包括不正确的计费和购买。

The appeals court said the district court, in two 2020 dismissals of the claim, improperly used a document that had not been introduced in court previously to analyze “materiality” in the whistleblower’s complaint.

上诉法院说：“在得出这一结论时，地方法院考虑了投诉以外的多个报告，因为它们是通过引用或不可或缺的投诉纳入投诉的。”

具体而言，法院表示，下级法院考虑2014年9月的一份国防合同审计机构报告是不当的，该报告用来得出结论，该报告是，前AECOM UNI所谓的有关其劳动计费惯例，人间利用率和跟踪的虚假陈述和跟踪government property were not material to the case, because the government was aware of the company’s violation of its contract but continued to pay the contractor and extended its contract multiple times.

There is no evidence in the court record that the government had actual knowledge of the former unit's labor billing violations, the appeals court said.

上诉法院说：“因此，为了确定工头是否充分恳求实质性，我们无法得出结论，政府对AECOM所谓的违反劳动帐单的实际了解。”calling into question its 'actual knowledge.’"

上诉法院引用了证据支持重要性问题的两面，但最终得出的结论是，举报人足够表明他的主张是基于该单位的劳动账单实践的重要性。

举报人的主张可追溯至2016年。

上诉法院维持下级法院的所有其他裁定。

Under the unit's purchase agreement, the new parent "assumes liabilities related to or arising out of that business unit," says an AECOM spokesman. "This means Amentum has full responsibility for this lawsuit. AECOM is not involved in the defense and does not have any liability for the outcome. There are no proceedings by any government authority against AECOM in this matter."

Amentum的发言人拒绝对该诉讼发表评论。