Nonprofit Operating in War Zones Investigated

The Washington Post is running a story involving Arlington-based International Relief and Development (“IRD”), “the largest recipient of grants of any nonprofit organization funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development” (“USAID”).  Eighty-two percent of IRD’s $2.4 billion in funds received since 2007 reportedly were devoted to USAID projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The Post reports that a federal inspector general is seeking the identities of employees who signed confidentiality agreements with IRD that prohibited them “from making disparaging remarks about the company to ‘funding agencies’ or ‘officials of any government.’”  The existence of the agreements became an issue when the Post, in examining IRD’s operations, heard from former IRD employees that they had witnessed waste and potential fraud, but feared the prospect of coming forward because of the agreements.  Additional details follow:

IRD Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John F. Sopko said in a letter delivered to IRD President Arthur B. Keys on Wednesday that the agreements could violate the False Claims Act and other statutes designed to protect taxpayers and whistleblowers.

 

In addition to the names, he asked IRD to disclose the federal contracts and grants that the employees worked on while they were with the Virginia nonprofit group, as well as any correspondence with the company. Forty-nine IRD employees signed the agreements at issue, seven on programs in Afghanistan, the nonprofit group said.

 

“We are actively seeking information concerning IRD’s compliance with whistleblower protection laws and regulations,” the inspector general wrote.

IRD has issued a statement pledging its cooperation with the inspector general.  In addition, according to the Post, IRD General Counsel Jason Matechak has told the inspector general that employees have been notified that the agreements do not preclude them from participating in a governmental investigation, and that IRD “would not seek to enforce the separation agreement in a manner that would run afoul of the False Claims Act.”

JRB