DenseDefenseInsights
briefSep 13, 2026

The Defensible Position

Under self-attestation the False Claims Act does not punish being wrong. It punishes being knowingly wrong — so the record behind your score is the defense.


With CMMC Phase II suspended (Department of War, 13 July 2026), a DoD contractor self-assesses and the affirming official personally signs the SPRS score. No C3PAO validates it. Only the Department of Justice and whistleblowers do — after every invoice under that score has already been submitted.

The exposure is real, and it is enforced

Each invoice submitted under a false attestation is a separate claim, and each claim carries a civil penalty of $14,308–$28,619 — on top of treble (3×) damages. A single $1M contract billed across 36 invoices reaches roughly $3.5–4M of exposure. That is arithmetic on the statute, not a settlement figure — but the settlements are real:

ContractorSettlementYearWhat they did
MORSECORP$4.6M2025Reported an SPRS score of 104; the true score was −142, and it sat on the correction.
Health Net Federal$11.25M2025Falsely certified cybersecurity compliance on a DoD TRICARE contract.
Raytheon / RTX$8.4M2025No compliant System Security Plan on a system used for DoD work.
Aerojet Rocketdyne$9.0M2022Misrepresented DFARS 252.204-7012 compliance.
Penn State$1.25M2024Non-compliant scores and failure to develop and implement POA&Ms.
Georgia Tech$875K2025A score built on a “fictitious” environment not tied to any real system.

DoJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative settled $51.85M across eight cases in 2025 alone — up 233% over 2024. Many were tipped by a whistleblower, who is entitled to 15–30% of the recovery.

Liability attaches to the false statement — not to the gaps

A score below 110 is not a false claim. DFARS 7012 and NIST SP 800-171 expressly allow a Plan of Action & Milestones for controls not yet implemented. The FCA’s “knowing” standard is actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard (31 U.S.C. §3729(b)(1); Schutte v. SuperValu, 2023 — judged on your subjective belief at the time). What sinks contractors is misreporting, a fake environment, or no plan.

An honest score of your real systems

Scanned from the hosts you actually run — not a fictitious environment. The number you sign is the number that is true.

Signed, tamper-evident evidence

Proof the posture was real at the moment you attested — the difference between “your score was wrong” and a documented, good-faith assessment.

A genuine POA&M for the gaps

The remediation plan the law contemplates — and the exact thing Penn State was penalized for lacking.

The math

ForteFide costs a few thousand dollars. The exposure it removes runs from $875K to $11M+ in real settlements. A ForteFide year costs less than a whistleblower’s share of the smallest case on that list. Everyone else helps you claim a score; ForteFide helps you prove it.

Sources.
Per-claim penalty $14,308–$28,619 — Federal Register 2025-12494 (eff. 3 Jul 2025); 28 CFR §85.5
Treble damages & “knowing” standard — 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(1),(b)(1)
Whistleblower share — 31 U.S.C. §3730(d); Schutte v. SuperValu, 598 U.S. (2023)
Settlements — DoJ press releases (MORSE 26 Mar 2025; Penn State Oct 2024) and law-firm alerts citing the DoJ actions; 2025 CCFI totals via Fluet Law / Mintz (Jan 2026)
← All insights