Question 1 answer: Paul has the proposal with the truth of negotiations stated on and signed by the senior officer of Welton. The management section has details of previous similar projects that was done by Welton that support his beliefs that something is wrong. 1.1 Experience with previous similar contracts. 1.2 Statements in the proposal indicated that the manufacturing plans for this contract were similar to those of other contracts.  1.3 Most of the personnel involved in the current contract had worked on previous contracts, suggesting they should have been familiar with the processes. 

Question 2 answer: From a project management perspective, there appears to be insufficient information for a possible lawsuit, taking in consideration; Welton might have misrepresented facts to benefit from the incentive bonus as the discrepancy between the stated need for extended planning period and the actual requirement s based on past performance.

The inconsistencies between Welton's proposal and their historical performance with similar contracts could be seen as intentional misrepresentations or fraud, providing legitimate grounds for a lawsuit.  

Question 3 answer: Based on the information provided and assuming it is factual case with the author, it is creditable that:

The potential misrepresentations has led to JAG to investigate, but no sufficient  evidence was found and no legal action against Welton could have been made.

If Welton was found quality of misrepresentation or fraud, the company might have been required to return the incentive bonus and could have faced additional penalties.

The policy for the future contracts must be changed, to prevent similar issues in the future.