In the Matter of the Complaint Against:

 MICHAEL R. EVANS,
 1008 Joaquin Street,
 Dallas, Texas  75228-2233

 P.S. Docket No. PF-15

 3/29/91

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCES FOR THE POSTAL SERVICE: William J. Jones, Esq.,
 Charles R.  Braun, Esq., Sandra C. McFeeley, Esq., Office of Contracts & 
 Property Law, United States Postal Service,475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.,
 Washington, DC 20260-1130

This proceeding arises out of a Complaint issued by William J. Jones, Esq., Associate General Counsel, Office of Contracts and Property Law, as a Reviewing Official ("Complainant") for the United States Postal Service under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-509, 31 U.S.C. § 3801-3812, and 39 CFR Parts 273 and 962. The Complaint was served upon Michael R. Evans ("Respondent") on February 5, 1991. To date, Respondent has failed to file a Petition as required by 39 CFR § 962.3.

By Order dated March 22, 1991, the Judicial Officer referred the Complaint to the Administrative Law Judge for processing in accordance with 39 CFR § 962.4.

In the Complaint, the Reviewing Official alleges that Respondent is liable to the Postal Service under 31 U.S.C § 3802(a)(1) for an assessment of $4,360 (double the amount Respondent falsely claimed and collected) plus civil penalties of $3,800 (one-half of one percent of the maximum statutory penalty of $5,000 for each false claim which Respondent submitted).

In accordance with 39 CFR § 962.4(a), this Initial Decision is based upon the information contained in the Complaint.

1. Respondent Michael R. Evans is an individual whose address is 11008 Joaquin Street, Dallas, Texas 75228-2233.

2. While individually doing business under the name "Advanced Pest Control," Respondent entered into Contract No. 482271-86-V-2012 (the contract) with the Postal Service to provide certain pest control services at the main city post office and 14 postal branches and stations in Dallas, Texas, for a one-year term beginning April 15, l986.

3. During the original term of the contract, Respondent agreed to a contract amendment extending the contract's term for a second year, ending on April l4, l988.

4. The contract established a regular schedule of service visits for each office, station, and branch covered by the contract, and a service price of $50 for each main office visit and $20 for each branch or station visit.

5. The contract provided for payment to be made to Respondent on the basis of signed and dated invoices submitted to the Postal Service by the Respondent for work actually performed.

6. Respondent submitted to the Postal Service l52 "service reports," or invoices, for $20 each, as listed in Appendix A, each of which requested payment under the contract for services performed between October 3, l987, and March 8, l988, which services had not been performed.

7. On each invoice listed in Appendix A, the branch or station manager's signature (purportedly verifying Respondent's provision of contract-scheduled service) is forged.

8. Respondent submitted each such invoice knowing or having reason to know that the station manager's signature verifying provision of service on each such invoice was forged, such false verifying signature being a material misrepresentation of fact in support of each such request by Respondent for payment.

9. Respondent submitted each such invoice knowing or having reason to know that each such invoice was a request for payment for the provision of services which had not been provided as claimed.

10. Respondent collected payment from the Postal Service for 109 of these false and forged invoices.

11. The total dollar amount of the false claims submitted by Respondent to the Postal Service was $3,040.

12. The total dollar amount collected by Respondent as the result of the false claims was $2,l80.

13. Respondent has not repaid to the Postal Service any of $2,180 which Respondent fraudulently obtained from it.

1. The first issue is whether Respondent is subject to penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 3802(a)(1) n1 for making false claims

n1 Section 3802(a)(1) provides as follows:

3802. False Claims and statements; liability

(a)(1) Any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a claim that the person knows or has reason to know--

(A) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;

(B) includes or is supported by any written statement which asserts a material fact which is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;

(C) includes or is supported by any written statement that--

(i) omits a material fact;

(ii) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent as a result of such omission; and

(iii) is a statement in which the person making, presenting, or submitting such statement has a duty to include such material fact; or

(D) is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject to, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such claim. [Unless no payment has been made by the Government on the claim] ..., such person shall also be subject to an assessment, in lieu of damages sustained by the United States because of such claim, of not more than twice the amount of such claim, or the portion of such claim, which is determined under this chapter to be in violation of the preceding sentence.

for work that was not performed. It is concluded that the 152 invoices with forged signatures indicating work was performed are materially false. Also, Respondent submitted those invoices knowing, or having reason to know, that they were false.

2. Under these circumstances, Respondent is subject to, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, civil penalties of not more than $5,000 for each false claim. Since Respondent has failed to file a Petition in opposition to the Complaint, the Complainant's allegation of liability for a civil penalty in the total amount of $3,800 is deemed admitted. See 39 CFR § 962.4(a) and § 962.15(a)(2) & (d). Moreover, no mitigating circumstances have been presented, and the reduced amount sought by Complainant is justified by the amount of compensation falsely claimed. Accordingly, Respondent is liable for a civil penalty of $3,800.

3. The next issue is the amount of the assessment to be imposed upon Respondent under § 3802(a)(1). The statute provides, in pertinent part, that a person making such false claims shall be subject to an assessment, in lieu of damages sustained by the United States because of such claims, of not more than twice the amount of such claims to the extent they were collected. Since Respondent made false claims in the amount of $2,180, which amount he collected from the Postal Service, he is liable for an assessment of not more than $4,360. Again, his liability for the maximum assessment is deemed admitted, and no mitigating circumstances have been presented. Accordingly, Respondent is liable for the maximum assessment of $4,360.

4. In conclusion, Respondent is liable to the Postal Service under 31 U.S.C. § 3802(a)(1) for a civil penalty of $3,800 plus an assessment of $4,360.