Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
81 cluding such a requirement in its construction contracts. A related but distinct trend is also emerging in northeastern states such as New York and Massachusetts, where multiple agen- cies and authorities in the New York and Boston metropolitan areas have begun requiring the use of IPSIGs and project monitors to address integ- rity issues for situations involving problem con- tractors and major construction projects. J. Standard Forms, Procedures, and References in Use by Transportation Agencies While state DOTs are making only limited use of standard forms and procedures to address the risk of false claims on federal-aid state transportation construction projects, the interviews conducted for this project did identify three specific standard forms or procedures worth consideration: ⢠Caltrans has developed a standard form to be used by agency attorneys in reviewing construc- tion claims for the risk of potential or actual false claims or fraud. ⢠The USDOT OIG has developed a "red flag" list for use in reviewing contract bids, contractor pay- ment requests, contractor requests for change or- ders, and contract claims. It appears highly advis- able for state DOTs to train the personnel who handle such matters in the use of this federal "red flag" list as a low-cost but potentially effective means of detecting fraud.369 ⢠The DOJ Antitrust Division has also developed a "red flag" list for use in identifying potential col- lusion and bid-rigging affecting bidding for public construction contracts. Again, it appears highly advisable for state DOTs to train personnel in use of this list.370 SECTION XVIII. CONCLUSION This digest summarizes the significant 2009 FERA amendments to the FCA and their impact upon prior judicial interpretations of that Act. Practitioners in this area need to familiarize themselves with the many ways in which FERA changed the Act. This digest discusses the provi- sions of that Act and judicial precedents guiding their interpretation. It also summarizes compa- rable state FCAs and false statement statutes, and highlights selected state case law. It discusses the responses provided by 31 of the 50 state DOTs surveyed regarding the extent to which they are aware of and make use of the Act in efforts to protect publicly-funded highway and bridge con- struction projects from false claims and other waste, fraud, and abuse. It also discusses the re- 369 Appendix B to this digest. 370 Appendix C to this digest. sults of in-depth follow-up interviews with se- lected state officials and with federal and pri- vate-sector practitioners and experts in this field. From our research and interviews with fed- eral, state, and private-sector experts, we have also identified promising practices for the pre- vention and remediation of false claims.
