SEMO Services, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company (2022)

Citation: SEMO Services, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company (2022)
Parent Document: SEMO Services, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company (2022)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10630559/semo-services-inc-v-bnsf-railw... ↗

Full Text

1,515 chars

As previously noted, Estes, charged with leading BNSF’s investigation into fraudulent
activity, identified “red flags” and other “questionable” activity, including “inappropriate
relationships” between SEMO and BNSF employees circumventing the procurement process. In
his deposition, Bischler explained that before he signed and forwarded the August 17 letter, the
incipient stages of the BNSF investigation or audit uncovered multiple concerns, such as the fact
the business process outlining SEMO’s work procedure was not being followed, SEMO’s work
performance on one project fell outside of the scope of the contract and SEMO’s spending was
elevated. Another BNSF investigator, Angela Boogaerts (Boogaerts) identified a conflict of
interest existing between a BNSF employee and a SEMO executive after discovering a text
message promising work to SEMO outside the normal procurement process by utilizing a
grappling truck. In addition, BNSF knew that the grappling truck had been used many days and
the charging was questionable. Of additional concern, BNSF learned that another vendor was in
fact owned by the family of one of the BNSF employees accused of wrongdoing in the telephone
call. SEMO was utilizing this company on their work projects. Additionally, Boogaerts and
BNSF discovered another vendor implicated in the telephone call was seeking payment for the
questionable rental of “Porta Johns.” Relatedly, BNSF had received duplicate invoices from this same vendor requesting payment for SEMO work. 12

Other Sections in This Document (92)

Full Text