E-Verify is the free online system from the Department of Homeland Security that compares an employee's Form I-9 information with DHS and Social Security records to confirm the person can work in the United States.
Plan reviews connect field conditions, drawings, and the next decisions on a job. AI-generated illustration.
E-Verify is an internet-based check that runs after the Form I-9. The employer enters information from the new hire's I-9, and the system compares it to Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records. Many results come back in seconds. The service is free. Many employers use it by choice, but it becomes mandatory in two common construction situations: federal contracts that include the FAR E-Verify clause, and states that require it by statute. State rules vary, so check yours.
When federal contractors must use E-Verify
FAR 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification, is the clause that brings E-Verify into federal construction. When it is in your contract, the deadlines are specific.
Key deadlines under FAR 52.222-54
Situation
Requirement
Not enrolled at award
Enroll as a federal contractor within 30 calendar days of award
New hires (not enrolled at award)
Start using E-Verify within 90 calendar days of enrollment, then verify each new hire within 3 business days after hire
Employees assigned to the contract
Verify within 90 calendar days after enrollment (or award, if already enrolled) or 30 calendar days after assignment, whichever is later
Subcontracts
Flow the clause down to subcontracts for services or construction over $3,500 for work performed in the United States
The clause also lets certain employers, such as state and local governments and sureties performing under a takeover agreement, verify only the employees assigned to the contract. Employees who were already verified through E-Verify, or who hold an active federal security clearance, generally do not need to be run again.
How it works on a real job
Say a mechanical contractor wins a $1.4 million subcontract on a federal courthouse renovation, and the prime's subcontract flows down FAR 52.222-54. The sub has never used E-Verify. It enrolls as a federal contractor within 30 days, then sets a reminder: from enrollment it has 90 days to start running new hires, and each pipefitter assigned to the courthouse has to be verified within the later of 90 days from enrollment or 30 days from assignment. The sub passes the clause down to its insulation sub, because that subcontract is construction work over $3,500 in the United States.
Common mistakes
Running E-Verify before the I-9 is complete. The check uses I-9 information, so the I-9 comes first.
Treating enrollment as the finish line. Enrollment comes with program rules on whom to run and when; read them and train whoever does onboarding.
Forgetting the flow-down to lower-tier subs. See flow-down clause.
Missing the 3-business-day window for new hires on a covered contract because the I-9 sat in a superintendent's truck.
Assuming federal rules are the only ones. Some states have their own E-Verify mandates, often aimed at public contractors. Check your state's rules.
Not for every company. It is required when a federal contract or subcontract includes FAR 52.222-54, and in states that require it by law. Otherwise many employers use it by choice.
Does E-Verify replace Form I-9?+
No. Employers still complete Form I-9 for every new hire. E-Verify uses the I-9 information to run an electronic check.
Does E-Verify cost anything?+
No. E-Verify describes itself as a free service.
Do subcontractors have to use E-Verify on federal jobs?+
When the subcontract is for services or construction over $3,500 and the work is performed in the United States, FAR 52.222-54 must be flowed down, so yes.
Two Ohio asphalt companies paid $30M for faking quality control tests on federal highway projects for 12+ years. Kokosing $17.5M, Barrett $12.5M. What every contractor must do to verify subcontractor QC testing. The False Claims Act liability chain. Digital chain-of-custody and how to protect yourself.
Starts muted when the player comes into view.
Read the full episode transcript
Published transcript from Scaling Legends. It may contain transcription errors. View the source transcript.
Imagine doing everything perfectly on a multi -million dollar federally funded highway bill, right? Like your safety's totally dialed in, your crews are just crushing the schedule and everything looks great. Right. But then you find out a subcontractor's paperwork hides a $30 million secret. Oh man. Yeah. A secret that could literally sink the entire project. And it wasn't a bridge collapse. It wasn't, you know, some sophisticated heist of heavy equipment from the job site. It was a photocopied piece of paper. Exactly. Just a piece of paper. And the moment that paper was handed over, it effectively turned a highly profitable project into a ticking time bomb for every single contractor involved. Because it's the ultimate blind spot for a general contractor. I mean,
you can control the concrete you pour, right? You can control the steel you play. you monitor the safety of your crews. But controlling that invisible paper trail generated by your subcontractors? Yeah, that's tough. It is. That is an entirely different and, frankly, a far more dangerous beast. Welcome to the Deep Dive, everyone. We have tailored this one specifically for our Scaling Legends listeners. Yeah. So if you are a construction business owner, a GC, or really anyone managing heavy civil projects, you need to turn the volume up. right now. Absolutely. Because our entire conversation today is built on Smart Business Automator's Market Intelligence Report, which documents a massive, decade -long asphalt testing scandal that just recently broke wide open in Ohio. And what makes this document so crucial
isn't just the shock value of the headlines, you know, it meticulously breaks down the granular mechanics of how a fraud of this magnitude functions day -to -day on a job site. Right. And maybe more importantly, how it evades detection for literally years. Gates almost. So our mission today is pretty straightforward. We are going to unpack the mechanics of this fraud, explore the hidden and honestly terrifying liabilities that threaten general contractors who are just trying to do their jobs. Yeah, the collateral damage. Exactly. And most importantly, we're going to build a bulletproof quality control playbook. By the end of this conversation, you will have the tools to protect your own operations. So let's get right into the facts. Okay, let's unpack this. What exactly happened in Ohio and what is the scale of the damage we are looking
at here? Well, we are looking at a crater. I mean, the hard facts are just staggering. Two major Ohio asphalt companies recently paid a combined $30 million in settlements for fabricating quality control or QC tests on federally funded highway projects. $30 million? Yeah. Cocos and Materials paid $17 .5 million for fraud that spanned from 2012 to 2024. Wait, 2012? Yep. And Barrett Paving paid $12 .5 million for similar fraudulent practices spanning from 2013 to 2025. Over a decade. Both of them were operating like this for 12 straight years on taxpayer -funded infrastructure projects. That is wild. 12 years of falsified data, yeah. On projects that carry the absolute highest levels of federal scrutiny. Okay, so break down the actual mechanism of the
fraud for me. Well, when we say they falsify data, did they have some rogue lab technician in a back room cooking up fake numbers in a spreadsheet? No, nothing that sophisticated, which is precisely why it is so alarming. To understand the fraud, we kind of have to understand what they were actually supposed to be doing. On a highway project, you don't just melt tar and rocks together and hope for the best. You have to create what is called a job mix formula. Let's define that for a second, because a job mix formula isn't just a basic ingredients list, right? Not at all. It is a highly specific scientific recipe. It's tailored to the exact climate and traffic weight of that specific stretch of road. You are balancing aggregates like crushed stone, gravel, and sand
with a liquid asphalt binder. And to prove that your mix matches the required formula, you have to run constant, rigorous physical tests. You take physical samples of the asphalt, you put them into laboratory centrifuges. A centrifuge. What is the centrifuge actually doing to the asphalt? So a centrifuge rapidly spins the sample to separate the liquid asphalt binder from the solid rock and sand. Oh, wow. Okay. Yeah. They do this so they can weigh the binder and ensure the ratio is exact. Because if you have too much binder in your mix, the road gets socked in the summer. It develops those deep ruts under the weight of heavy semi -trucks. Right, right. But if you have too little binder, the road becomes brittle and it just shatters or cracks during a freezing winter. They also test the structural integrity and density. I mean, it is an exhaustive,
time -consuming physical process. So instead of doing all that spinning and weighing, what did Kokosing and Barrett actually do? They simply didn't do it. They just skipped it. completely bypassed the physical testing. Instead, they repeatedly submitted fabricated job mix formulas and just recycled old QC test data. You're kidding. No. They literally just copied and pasted the passing results from prior legitimate tests, changed the date at the top of the PDF, and submitted them as brand new test results for the current day's poor. I mean, it's like buying a certified pre -owned fleet vehicle for your company, feeling great about that rigorous 150 -point inspection the dealer promised, only to find out the mechanic just photocopied last year's safety inspection from a completely different truck and, like,
slipped it into the glove box. That is the perfect way to look at it, because the physical product, the asphalt going down the highway, might look perfectly fine to the naked eye, just like that truck might start up fine in the lot. Yeah. But the underlying assurance, you know, the verifiable scientific data that guarantees that highway will actually survive 10 harsh winters, it's completely hollow. But I have to play devil's advocate here for a second because I genuinely am struggling to wrap my head around the logistics of this. We're talking about the Department of Transportation. We're talking about federal auditors, seasoned project managers. If a company hands in the exact same homework for over 12 years, how does not a single inspector raise an eyebrow? You'd think they would. Right. You'd think eventually
someone would notice that the density metrics or the binder content numbers were identical to the third decimal point month after month. Well, what's fascinating here is that you would assume that, but the reality of the construction industry's documentation process is vastly different. The reason this went undetected for over a decade is that the entire industry relies on a deeply entrenched, highly siloed trust system. A trust system? Yeah. For a multi -million dollar federal highway? Yeah. That sounds incredibly naive. It is naive, but it is standard operating procedure. There was almost zero independent verification happening. Think about how the paperwork actually flows, right? The asphalt company runs the test, or in this case, fakes the test. They generate a PDF. They hand that PDF to the general... So
it's essentially the TSA checking if you hold a piece of paper that looks like a boarding pass without actually reading the name on the ticket to see if it matches your ID. Exactly. There was absolutely no cross -referencing of the submitted test dates or the actual granular data against historical submissions. The review process was merely verifying the physical existence of the paperwork, not the authenticity of the data within it. Man, if the system is this broken, we have to ask why it's happening in the first place. Like, why does a massive, highly resourced, reputable company suddenly decide to start photocopying old data? It comes down to immense... crushing cost pressures and the realities of project schedules. Running a genuine, rigorous QC test takes hours of labor. It requires specialized technicians.
Which are hard to find right now. Exactly. Meanwhile, you have an asphalt plant that needs to keep trucks moving and a paving crew waiting on the highway. Stopping to run a test halts production. When a company is squeezed by tight margins, severe labor shortages, and aggressive project deadlines, cutting corners on QC testing becomes this invisible way to save time and money. Wow. It doesn't show up immediately like a crack in a foundation would. It just hides quietly in a file cabinet. Here's where it gets really interesting, though. And terrifying, honestly. Because this wasn't some high -tech cyber heist. Right. Nobody hacked a mainframe or wrote malicious code to alter a database. It was just a catastrophic failure of curiosity from the people receiving the documents. And I want you, the listener. to stop and really consider this right now. If
two massive companies got away with this for 12 years in broad daylight, how many of your subcontractors might be quietly recycling old data on your job sites right now? A statistical probability that this exact scenario is playing out on projects across the country as we speak. Which brings us to a critical point. Because if I'm a general contractor listening to this, I might be thinking, well, that's terrible for the asphalt companies. They got caught. They paid the $30 million. But I'm the GC. I didn't fake the test. Why is this my problem? Oh, that specific line of thinking is exactly what will put a general contractor out of business. Really? Yes. The liability does not stop at the entity that fabricated the document. Okay, walk me through the mechanics of that. How does the GC get pulled
into the blast radius? Because liability in construction is kind of like a game of legal tag, where everyone touching the contract becomes it at the same time. That is a great analogy. It all comes down to the False Claims Act. This is the federal law that allows the government to recover triple damages, meaning three times the amount of the original claim, plus massive civil penalties from anyone who submits or causes the submission of false claims for government funds. But wait, under the False Claims Act, doesn't there have to be intent? The GC didn't intend to defraud the government. They were just passing along a PDF they thought was real. That is the trap. The False Claims Act doesn't just punish intentional mustache -twirling fraud. It also punishes what the law calls reckless disregard or deliberate
ignorance of the truth. Right. So if you are a GC subbing out spec -critical work like asphalt paving, concrete pouring, or steel erecting, you eventually have to get paid. When you bundle your subcontractor invoices and those supposedly valid QC reports, and you submit that package to the owner or the federal government for payment, you as the GC are legally certifying that the work was done to spec. Oh, I see. By handing the package over, I am putting my company's stamp of approval on it. Precisely. If that underlying QC data is fraudulent and you had no system in place to verify it, the government can argue you acted with reckless disregard. You have just submitted a false claim. And remember, the government can pursue triple damages. Right. So if that was a $5 million paving contract, your company
could be on the hook for $15 million, plus thousands in penalties for every single invoice submitted. The liability chain runs through every single firm touching the contract. That is an incredibly heavy burden. You are legally vouching for the integrity of a highly scientific document you didn't even create. And if you are wrong, you pay the ultimate price. And the ripple effects go so far beyond the initial fines. Yes, we are talking about $30 million in direct settlements for the subcontractors here. But for a GC caught in the crossfire, you are looking at totally destroyed reputations and catastrophic insurance implications. Specifically, we have to talk about surety companies. For the listener who might be newer to the financial side of heavy civil work, just quickly break down what a surety company
is and why they care. Sureties are the financial institutions that issue performance and payment bonds for construction projects. Essentially, they guarantee to the project owner that the GC will finish the job according to the contract and pay all their subs. If the GC fails, the surety steps in and pays the bill. Because they underwrite the massive financial risk of these projects, they monitor industry liabilities very, very closely. And I imagine they were looking at this Ohio scandal and absolutely panicking. Oh, absolutely. In fact, Smart Business Automator's market intelligence report specifically highlights that surety companies are watching this case and aggressively reacting to it right now. They are no longer willing to underwrite the risk of a GC who operates on the honor system. Wow. The report indicates that sureties will soon be enhancing their own verification requirements.
Before they even issue a bond allowing you to bid on a project, they are going to demand proof that you, the GC, have concrete systems in place to catch this kind of subcontract. It's game over. Game over. If we connect this to the bigger picture, passive trust is now a massive legal and financial liability. So the era of taking a subcontractor's word for it. is officially dead. We've painted a pretty grim picture of the landscape here. The feds are watching, the sureties are demanding proof, and your subs might be handing you photocopies of last year's homework. Yeah. So what does this all mean? How can the construction business owners listening to this actually protect themselves? We need to build a playbook. We do. And a bulletproof quality
control playbook is broken down into two distinct parts, structural human solutions and a massive technological shift. Let's start with the human element, the changes you need to make to your contracts today. Okay, let's hear the structural changes. First, you must build strict QC audit rights into every single subcontract agreement. You need the explicit legal authority to walk into your sub's office or their testing lab and demand the raw, unedited data straight from their testing machines. You cannot just accept the polished PDF they hand you at the end of the month. That makes perfect sense. It immediately changes the dynamic from, we assume you did it, to... We have the right to verify you did it. What is the second step? Second, you have to mandate random third -party testing. You cannot
rely 100 % on a subcontractor self -reporting their own homework. You need to budget to bring in an independent lab entirely unannounced to pull a core sample from the asphalt or run an independent mix analysis. Historically, random independent testing is what catches the fraud that self -reporting misses. It keeps everyone honest because the sub never knows when the independent auditor is going to show up on the highway. It introduces unpredictability. Yeah. I like that a lot. And what about the project managers who are actually handling this paperwork on the front lines? That is the third human element. You have to explicitly train your project managers not just to file test reports, but to actively read and cross -reference them. PMs are incredibly busy, and it is so easy to treat a QC report as an administrative hot potato. Oh, for sure.
They receive it, they drag it into a digital folder, and they move on to the next fire. They need to be trained to stop and look at the timestamps. Does this test date logically align with the day the material was actually poured? Are the metric values suspiciously identical to the pour from three weeks ago? Okay, I see the logic there, but let me push back on the reality of the job site for a minute. Human review is great in a vacuum. But it isn't always scalable, right? If I have a PM managing three different heavy civil jobs, they're receiving dozens, if not hundreds, of submittals, daily logs, and handwritten field tickets every single week. Expecting a human being to sit there with a highlighter and cross -reference granular asphalt density numbers against a PDF from six months ago, I mean, the volume is just too high. It is a lot of data.
Yeah, plus my subcontractors are often handing me faded handwritten tickets with coffee stains on them. How do we scale this without hiring an army of administrators? We need better systems. Specifically, a digital chain of custody that includes timestamped, geotagged, and tamper -evident documentation right. You are identifying the exact bottleneck that allowed the Ohio fraud to happen. You cannot outwork this problem with more admin hours. You have to out -system it. And this is where the technological shift comes into play. According to Smart Business Automator's Market Intelligence report, modern AI platforms are specifically designed to digitize these exact QC workflows and eliminate the gap of human oversight. Okay, walk me through the mechanics of that. Because AI is a buzzword that gets thrown around a lot. How does a software platform actually
read a messy, coffee -stained field ticket and catch a fake job mix formula. It utilizes a mechanism called document intelligence, which relies heavily on advanced optical character recognition, or OCR, paired with spatial recognition. When a PM uploads a messy QC report, the AI doesn't just view it as a dumb image file. The OCR extracts the handwritten or typed text, but the spatial recognition understands the context of where that text is located on the page. Oh, interesting. So it knows the difference between a date at the top of the page and a numeric value sitting in the middle of it. data table. Exactly. It extracts those specific metrics and instantly compares them against the master contract specs and the project schedule. If a sub submits an asphalt density test dated May 12, the AI cross
-references the project schedule to verify if paving actually occurred on May 12. It checks the density numbers against the required engineering standards. It is designed to catch those temporal gaps and mathematical compliance issues instantly, flagging them for the PM before that document ever gets bundled into an invoice and becomes a False Claims Act liability. That fundamentally changes the game. It's an automated auditor that never sleeps. But what about the historical data? The Ohio fraud worked because the fake documents were buried in nested folders over a 12 -year period. Finding a discrepancy manually meant opening hundreds of files. That is solved by smart document organization paired with natural language processing. Modern systems automatically tag and categorize every daily report, submittal,
and QC test as it enters the system. Because the system utilizes natural language processing, teams don't have to hunt through rigid folder structures anymore. They can literally just talk to the database. Give me a real -world example of how a PM interacts with that. Instead of clicking through 12 folders labeled by year and month, a PM can just type into the search bar, show me all job mix formula submissions for Cocosing from the Route 9 project over the last six months. The AI instantly pulls them all up side by side on one screen. It makes it incredibly easy for a human to spot if a subcontractor is handing in mathematically identical data over and over again because the barrier to auditing drops to almost zero. If it only takes five seconds to check six months of data, your PM is actually going to check it. Plus, it monitors project
health, schedule risks, and budget variances, right? Offering daily log summaries so PMs aren't buried in admin and actually have the time to spot discrepancies. Exactly. That is powerful. But none of this works if my team has to manually type the data from the testing lab software into our accounting software, right? Because manual data entry is where things get fat fingered or intentionally manipulated. You are absolutely right, which is why integration is the final critical piece of the playbook. We have to eliminate manual data entry entirely. To do this, these platforms utilize APIs to connect directly with your existing ERPs. For the listener who is an absolute expert at moving millions of yards of dirt, but maybe not a software engineer, Define ERP and API for us. Sure. An ERP is your enterprise
resource planning software. It is essentially the central nervous system of your business where you're accounting, payroll, and master project management live. An API is the digital bridge that allows different pieces of software to talk to each other. By using APIs, the data from the field testing equipment flows directly across the bridge into your central ERP. So the data moves smoothly from the testing machine to the central database without a human ever touching a keyboard. Exactly. The data is pulled directly from the source. That preserves a tamper -evident, time -stamped digital chain of custody. It proves exactly when the test was run and ensures the numbers haven't been altered. By implementing these interconnected systems, you free up your project managers from drowning in administrative paperwork. when they aren't buried in data entry
they actually have the cognitive bandwidth to manage risks proactively and scrutinize the job site holistically so these tools allow project managers to handle more jobs without drowning in the paperwork that allowed the ohio fraud to happen in the first place you are essentially giving your team x -ray vision into the documentation allowing them to scale the business without scaling the risk This has been a deeply eye -opening conversation. We've navigated the raw shock of a $30 million asphalt fraud, broken down the severe liabilities hidden within the False Claims Act, and built a practical, tech -enabled playbook to stop it dead in its tracks. It is a lot of complex material to process, but it is necessary for survival in this industry right now. And as we wrap up our analysis of the source material
today, this raises an important question, a final provocative thought I want to leave everyone with. Lay it on us. We've spent this entire deep dive talking about the government catching fraudulent data and how GCs can use AI to verify that a piece of paper is telling the truth. But think about the technological shift we just discussed. As these AI platforms ingest millions of structural data points, density metrics, and job mix formulas across the country, we aren't just going to use them to catch fraud. Right. In five to ten years, as these AI models learn how specific concrete pores and asphalt mixes behave over time, they might be able to predict exactly which stretch of highway is going crack and exactly when, based purely on historical QC patterns. Are we moving from an era of simply catching administrative
lies to an era of predicting physical structural failures before the concrete even cures. Wow. Predicting a failure before the concrete cures. That completely reframes how we should view the value of this data. It isn't just a compliance burden. It is the blueprint for the future of building. That is going to stick with me. But we are not going to leave you hanging with just a philosophical thought. I have an immediate concrete action item for you, the listener. Highly recommend doing this. Sometime this week. tomorrow morning, or even this afternoon, I challenge you to pull just one QC test report from an active job your company is running right now. Take five minutes, look past the signature at the bottom, and actively cross -reference the test dates, the metric values, and the geotags if you have them. Prove to yourself that your current verification system actually works. And if you find a discrepancy,
well... It is vastly better that you find it today rather than a federal auditor finding it three years from now. Without a doubt, it will be the most profitable and protective five minutes you spend all week. The era of the honor system and construction is officially over. The new era is radical verification. Radical verification. I love that. Thank you for joining us today. If you found this breakdown valuable for your operations, please subscribe, rate, and review the show. Most importantly, share this episode with your colleagues, your project managers, and anyone on your Scaling Legends team who needs to hear this compliance warning. It takes an educated village to keep a project secure. And finally, if you want to see how the technology we discussed actually works in practice, visit smartbusinessautomator .com to see how Smart Business Automator protects contractors from
these exact compliance risks and helps you scale without the administrative nightmare. We started this conversation talking about how we expect precision in a multimillion -dollar highway build, but how an invisible paper trail can hide a $30 million pothole. Don't let your project be the one that sinks. Build your playbook, trust, but absolutely verify, and we will catch you on the next deep dive.
