Background: In Appeal of Laguna Construction Company, Inc., the Armed Services Board of Contracts Appeals (“ASBCA”) found that a contractor’s receipt of kickbacks from subcontractors was both criminal fraud and a material breach of the contract, which eliminated the Government’s obligation to reimburse the contractor for additional work, even if that work was not itself related to the fraud.  The ASBCA denied Laguna Construction Company, Inc.’s (“LCC”) certified claim for $2,874,081 in payments disallowed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”).  LCC had received sixteen cost-reimbursable task orders to perform work in Iraq under an Air Force Worldwide Environmental Remediation and Construction contract.  Following the filing of its claim, LCC’s Program Manager and Vice President of Operations pled guilty to taking kickbacks with regard to three of the sixteen task orders. 

In making its determination, the ASBCA relied on the principle of antecedent breach — the theory that when each party claims that the other has breached the contract, liability will be imposed “on the party that committed the first material breach.”  Applying this theory, the ASBCA found that LCC’s program manager and vice president of operations’ acceptance of kickbacks constituted the first material breach under the contract, thus providing the Government with a legal excuse not to pay LCC’s invoices. 

Specifically, the Board found that  LCC had breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which creates a duty for each party under a contract to perform with integrity and to avoid interfering with the other party’s rights under the contract.  The actions of LCC’s Program Manager and Vice President of Operations could be imputed to LCC as a whole, according to the Board, because both were operating under the contract and within the scope of their employment.  Thus, the bad actors’ acceptance of kickbacks violated the covenant, as it destroyed the “reasonable and justifiable expectations” of the Government in the performance of the contract. 

The ASBCA then determined that LCC’s breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was material because “kickbacks are fraudulent, and any degree of fraud is material as a matter of law.”  Critically, the Board found that even though the Government had not proven that kickbacks had been paid in connection to every LCC task order, the existence of kickbacks under some task orders was sufficient to find material breach and prevent any recovery by LCC.

Impact on Contractors: This precedent demonstrates that the Government will react aggressively to any taint of fraud in a claim, even if the fraud impacted only a small portion of the claim.  This is consistent with Court of Federal Claims precedent that all claims based on a contract under which a contractor practiced fraud against the Government can be forfeited under 28 U.S.C. § 2514 (“Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims”).  Additionally, if  the employee at issue was working within the scope of his employment under the contract, his fraudulent conduct likely will be imputed to the company — even if the employee was acting only to benefit himself. 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Susan B. Cassidy Susan B. Cassidy

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors…

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors on compliance with FAR and DFARS requirements, with a special expertise in supply chain and cybersecurity requirements. She has an active investigations practice and advises contractors when faced with cyber incidents involving government information. Susan relies on her expertise and experience with the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community to help her clients navigate the complex regulatory intersection of cybersecurity, national security, and government contracts. She is Chambers rated in both Government Contracts and Government Contracts Cybersecurity. In 2023, Chambers USA quoted sources stating that “Susan’s in-house experience coupled with her deep understanding of the regulatory requirements is the perfect balance to navigate legal and commercial matters.”

Her clients range from new entrants into the federal procurement market to well established defense contractors and she provides compliance advices across a broad spectrum of procurement issues. Susan consistently remains at the forefront of legislative and regulatory changes in the procurement area, and in 2018, the National Law Review selected her as a “Go-to Thought Leader” on the topic of Cybersecurity for Government Contractors.

In her work with global, national, and start-up contractors, Susan advises companies on all aspects of government supply chain issues including:

  • Government cybersecurity requirements, including the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), DFARS 7012, and NIST SP 800-171 requirements,
  • Evolving sourcing issues such as Section 889, counterfeit part requirements, Section 5949 and limitations on sourcing from China
  • Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) regulations and product exclusions,
  • Controlled unclassified information (CUI) obligations, and
  • M&A government cybersecurity due diligence.

Susan has an active internal investigations practice that assists clients when allegations of non-compliance arise with procurement requirements, such as in the following areas:

  • Procurement fraud and FAR mandatory disclosure requirements,
  • Cyber incidents and data spills involving sensitive government information,
  • Allegations of violations of national security requirements, and
  • Compliance with MIL-SPEC requirements, the Qualified Products List, and other sourcing obligations.

In addition to her counseling and investigatory practice, Susan has considerable litigation experience and has represented clients in bid protests, prime-subcontractor disputes, Administrative Procedure Act cases, and product liability litigation before federal courts, state courts, and administrative agencies.

Susan is a former Public Contract Law Procurement Division Co-Chair, former Co-Chair and current Vice-Chair of the ABA PCL Cybersecurity, Privacy and Emerging Technology Committee.

Prior to joining Covington, Susan served as in-house senior counsel at Northrop Grumman Corporation and Motorola Incorporated.