SuperSmart← Back to DiscoverDiscover
RESEARCH DRAFT

Research draft. Conclusions may change; review the sources and limitations before relying on them.

RESEARCH DRAFT · NOT A VERIFIED CONCLUSION

Raytheon admitted defrauding the Pentagon. 288 days later came a sole-source missile award capped at $3.5 billion.

The documented contrast is between an October 2024 enforcement resolution and a July 2025 procurement decision—not proof that the later contract was improper.

research_draftUpdated 2026-09-080 recorded actions
Conceptual generated illustration of documents and civic architectureCONCEPTUAL ILLUSTRATION

Monitor this connection

Sign in to your account to monitor updates
2Recorded evidence rows
0Investigation actions
5Review limitations
0Recorded answers

What this page shows

On October 16, 2024, DOJ announced resolutions exceeding $950 million and said Raytheon admitted two schemes to defraud the Defense Department. The deferred-prosecution agreements required independent compliance monitoring. DOJ also described suspension and debarment review as a separate administrative process. On July 31, 2025—288 days later—the government's contract notice announced a sole-source AMRAAM production award to Raytheon with a $3.5 billion ceiling. It was an undefinitized action: final terms had not all been settled. Its listed funding amounts total $1,514,060,936 obligated at award, including foreign military sales funding. Obligations are not cash disbursements. The finding is continued major procurement following admitted misconduct. The unanswered question is which responsibility findings, safeguards and pricing checks supported the later award.

Recorded evidence

U.S. Department of Justice
Raytheon resolutions, factual admissions and compliance measures2024-10-16
↗
U.S. defense contract notice
July 31 awards — AMRAAM FA8659-25-C-B0032025-07-31
↗

Limitations & review notes

  • Research draft. Conclusions may change; review the sources and limitations before relying on them.
  • Restored archival research draft: not independently reverified for this republication and not actively monitored. Check the linked originals and dated scope before relying on it.
  • The earlier conduct concerned different contracts and programs. No fraud, favoritism or illegality in the AMRAAM award is established here.
  • Deferred prosecution is not a trial conviction. DOJ also credited cooperation and remediation. Sole-source procurement is not itself evidence of wrongdoing.
  • Do not describe the ceiling as $3.5 billion already paid, or compare it with settlement dollars as a profit calculation. Both underlying announcements had prior coverage.

Questions this connection opens

  1. For contract FA8659-25-C-B003, what public responsibility determinations, sole-source justification and pricing safeguards explain the award after the 2024 resolution? Identify unavailable records rather than infer their contents.
Go deeper

Ask a follow-up question, compare another company, or review the supporting evidence.

Ask a follow-up