Listen To This Story

The US Air Force has just awarded a $1.86 billion contract to Strategic Test Solutions, a private company with only a placeholder website, no real public footprint, and no visible workforce. 

It’s extremely atypical for the Department of Defense to give a contract of this size to a private company with no public operations. 

Formed in October 2024 as a joint venture between AI Signal Research Inc. (ASRI) and Sierra Lobo, Inc., Strategic Test Solutions had no publicly reported income last year and appears to exist primarily as a private shell JV (joint venture), rather than an operating entity with virtually no public footprint.

Although listed by the DOD as Alabama-based, this company is registered in Delaware and uses CT Corporation, also known as Corporation Trust Center, a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, as its registered agent. 

Shell companies like this often exist only on paper. The parent companies do all the work while the shell legally holds the contract. As a private entity, it does not publicly report earnings, taxes, staff, or operational details, further shielding the flow of taxpayer funds from public scrutiny.

The really striking question is this: Why would ASRI (estimated earnings: $82 million) and Sierra Lobo (estimated earnings: $100-200 million) — two private companies already with long-standing DOD relationships — create a third private joint venture on paper to hold a government contract of this magnitude, instead of pursuing it directly under their established structures?

It is even more troubling when these new private contractors also use CT Corporation, a registered-agent service for roughly 70 percent of Fortune 500 firms, to further obscure ownership and corporate structures and gain tax and administrative advantages.

While using CT Corporation is common and legal among established public businesses to reduce taxes and obscure ownership and operations, it is especially alarming when private  government contractors adopt the same structure, given that they derive the vast majority of their revenue from taxpayer funds and operate with virtually no public transparency.

While Strategic Test Solutions does not have a standard DOD Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, a type already more vulnerable to fraud, the bigger concern is the expansion of JV shells to maximize opacity. Air Force contracting officials have offered no public answers, leaving the arrangement shrouded in secrecy despite the enormous taxpayer investment.

If a company’s revenue comes almost entirely from taxpayer funds, it should by default be fully transparent and publicly accountable. It’s also important to note that on March 2, Trump ruled the existing laws for transparency will no longer be enforced. Given the rampant security breaches and expanding fraud in federal contracting, this situation is deeply alarming and demands urgent scrutiny.

In the past, opaque entities and private JV contractors have fueled massive waste and fraud: Afghanistan reconstruction ($148 billion), LogCap/KBR contracts ($37 billion), DynCorp operations ($21 million), FEMA disaster contracts ($25 million), and small-business set-aside programs. 

In each case, fraud, waste, or mismanagement emerged only after taxpayer money was spent, with the shell entities and opaque reporting delaying detection and accountability.

Right now Strategic Test Solutions runs on taxpayer dollars with no transparency, risking a repeat of past fraud and waste.

Here is what you can do: Contact Congress to demand oversight, submit a FOIA request to the Department of Defense, alert watchdogs like Project on Government Oversight, or make a direct DOD complaint. Public pressure and constituent engagement are crucial to addressing this issue.

Hashtag Picks

Recent DOJ Settlements Highlight Risks for Contractors and Subcontractors Handling Sensitive Government Information

From Parker Poe: “On September 30, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $875,000 settlement with a university over failures to comply with the data security obligations in certain contracts with the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This announcement, along with several other recent settlement announcements by the DOJ and its Civil-Cyber Fraud Initiative, highlights the contract compliance risks for government contractors and subcontractors who handle sensitive government information and yet fail to comply with the federal government’s cybersecurity requirements.”  

DOJ Reports Substantial Procurement Fraud Recoveries in FY 2024

The author writes, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that it obtained more than $2.9 billion in False Claims Act (FCA) settlements and judgments in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2024. DOJ reports that matters that involved the healthcare industry comprised the largest portion of these FCA recoveries in FY 2024, but that ‘procurement fraud’ recoveries, once again, were significant for DOJ this past year.”

DOJ Strikes at Defense Contractors Over Cybersecurity Compliance and Pricing Issues

From Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer: “The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) obligates about half a trillion dollars a year to private contractors for everything from high-end weapons and data systems to basic goods and services like fuel, shipping, food, and medical care. That scale brings scrutiny from DOD’s contracting officers, auditors, and investigators, as well as from whistleblowers at contractors and subcontractors, who are incentivized by hefty qui tam bounties to identify performance failures (real or perceived). These are issues that often should be handled through negotiations or as contract disputes. Many times, however, these seemingly simple contract claims are relabeled as ‘fraud’ and transformed into high-stakes False Claims Act (FCA) cases.”

DOD Fraud Risk Management: DOD Should Expeditiously and Effectively Implement Fraud Risk Management Leading Practices

From the Government Accountability Office: “We testified about the Department of Defense’s efforts to reduce the risk of fraud. The scale and scope of its spending — including about $445 billion pledged in FY 2024 to contracts for new weapons, support services, and more — make it susceptible. However, DOD lacks a robust fraud risk management program, and its leadership hasn’t shown a strong commitment to this issue. As a result, we recently expanded DOD’s financial management area on our High Risk List to include fraud risk management. DOD has taken initial steps to implement a department-wide fraud risk management program, but it needs to do more to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud.”

Government Contractor Agrees to Pay $1M to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations for Submitting Fraudulent Bids on Prime Vendor Contracts

From the Department of Justice: “Johnny Buscema Jr. of New Port Richey, Florida, and his companies, S.A.F.E. Structure Designs, based in Las Vegas, and U.S.A. Manufacturing, based in New Port Richey, have agreed to pay $1,000,000 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by causing a prime vendor for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to submit fraudulent contract bids to DLA that resulted in Department of Defense (DoD) customers being overcharged for goods and related services purchased under those contracts.”

Defense Contractor Executive Sentenced in Bribery Scheme

The author writes, “Russell Thurston, a former executive vice president at Cambridge International Systems, Inc., a defense contractor headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, was sentenced in federal court today to 18 months custody, followed by 12 months home confinement, after admitting that he participated in a bribery scheme with other Cambridge employees and former Naval Information Warfare Center employee James Soriano.”

From 2024: Defense Contractor RTX Agrees To Pay More Than $950 Million To Resolve Bribery, Fraud Claims

The authors write, “RTX Corporation, the defense contractor formerly known as Raytheon, agreed … to pay more than $950 million to resolve allegations that it defrauded the government and paid bribes to secure business with Qatar. The company entered into deferred prosecution agreements in separate cases in federal court in Brooklyn and Massachusetts, agreed to hire independent monitors to oversee compliance with anti-corruption and anti-fraud laws and must show good conduct for three years. The money the company owes includes penalties in the criminal cases, as well as civil fines, restitution and the return of profits it derived from inflated Defense Department billing and business derived from alleged bribes paid to a high-ranking Qatari military official from 2012 to 2016.”