On February 1, 2022, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released its annual report summarizing False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement activity in FY 2021.  The report confirmed what many practitioners already suspected: FY 2021 was another banner year in FCA enforcement.  DOJ’s annual judgments and settlements exceeded $5.6 billion, making FY 2021 the second largest annual recovery ever (and the largest since 2014).  But beyond this top line number, a closer analysis of the figures in DOJ’s report offers additional insight on strategies for preventing and mitigating costly FCA exposure.

There is little doubt that the $5.6 billion in total FCA recoveries will dominate headlines, and understandably so given the 150% increase from FCA recoveries a year ago.  (It bears mentioning, however, that more than half of this total is attributable to few large cases initiated under the prior Administration that were resolved in FY 2021.)  Beyond the overall recovery figure, FY 2021 also saw 801 new FCA matters, which is roughly consistent with recent years but still historically high.  Further, while approximately 75% of new cases were initiated by relators, FY 2021 marked just the second time since 1995 that the U.S. Government initiated over 200 non-qui tam matters.  Debate has already begun about whether this increase reflects more aggressive FCA enforcement under the Biden DOJ or simply normal statistical fluctuation, but the Government’s appetite for identifying and pursuing its own FCA cases is something to watch in the year ahead.

As is typically the case, the vast majority of FCA recoveries arose in the health care space, but there was still plenty of action elsewhere.  In the defense industry, for example, 52 new cases were filed in FY 2021 and recoveries totaled ~$120 million.  These figures are consistent with recent trends, as the ten-year median for new FCA cases and recoveries in the defense industry is ~53 and ~$121 million, respectively.

Notably, 99.9% of the dollars recovered in the defense industry FCA actions last year came from cases where the Government was a party (either from the outset or through intervention), while a mere $35,000 was recovered in declined cases.  This data lends statistical support to the conventional wisdom that the best time to win an FCA case is pre-intervention.  After all, government contracting regulations are extraordinarily complex, and in many cases some initial education about the relevant regulatory scheme can help persuade an investigator or DOJ attorney that a matter does not merit intervention.

Finally, contractors should not miss the prominent reference to DOJ’s new Cyber Fraud Initiative in the press release accompanying the annual report.  DOJ’s decision to devote a separate section of its FY 2021 release to the new initiative is a telling indication of the Government’s enforcement emphasis on cyber issues, particularly given that the Cyber Fraud Initiative was not even announced until FY 2022.  It also is notable that the discussion of the Cyber Fraud Initiative includes a whistleblower reporting link, which reinforces the view of senior DOJ officials that whistleblowers are expected to play a “significant role in bringing to light knowing failures and misconduct in the cyber arena.”

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Robert Huffman Robert Huffman

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing…

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing information security and the reporting of cyber incidents, the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, the requirements for secure software development self-attestations and bills of materials (SBOMs) emanating from the May 2021 Executive Order on Cybersecurity, and the various requirements for responsible AI procurement, safety, and testing currently being implemented under the October 2023 AI Executive Order. 

Bob also represents contractors in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation and investigations involving cybersecurity and other technology compliance issues, as well more traditional government contracting costs, quality, and regulatory compliance issues. These investigations include significant parallel civil/criminal proceedings growing out of the Department of Justice’s Cyber Fraud Initiative. They also include investigations resulting from False Claims Act qui tam lawsuits and other enforcement proceedings. Bob has represented clients in over a dozen FCA qui tam suits.

Bob also regularly counsels clients on government contracting supply chain compliance issues, including those arising under the Buy American Act/Trade Agreements Act and Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, Bob advises government contractors on rules relating to IP, including government patent rights, technical data rights, rights in computer software, and the rules applicable to IP in the acquisition of commercial products, services, and software. He focuses this aspect of his practice on the overlap of these traditional government contracts IP rules with the IP issues associated with the acquisition of AI services and the data needed to train the large learning models on which those services are based. 

Bob is ranked by Chambers USA for his work in government contracts and he writes extensively in the areas of procurement-related AI, cybersecurity, software security, and supply chain regulation. He also teaches a course at Georgetown Law School that focuses on the technology, supply chain, and national security issues associated with energy and climate change.

Photo of Peter B. Hutt II Peter B. Hutt II

Peter Hutt represents government contractors in False Claims Act and fraud matters, and accounting, cost, and pricing disputes and counseling matters.

Peter is a leading False Claims Act lawyer in the government contracts arena. He has represented contractors for 35 years in matters…

Peter Hutt represents government contractors in False Claims Act and fraud matters, and accounting, cost, and pricing disputes and counseling matters.

Peter is a leading False Claims Act lawyer in the government contracts arena. He has represented contractors for 35 years in matters alleging cybersecurity noncompliance; cost mischarging; CAS violations; quality assurance deficiencies; substandard products and services; defective pricing; health care fraud; price reduction issues; inadequate subcontractor oversight; and reverse false claims. He has testified before Congress concerning the False Claims Act, and is a thought leader in the field. Peter also conducts internal investigations and advises clients on whether and how to make disclosures of potential wrongdoing.

Peter also represents contractors and grantees in accounting, cost, and pricing matters, and other contract and grant matters. He has addressed issues concerning pensions and post-retirement benefits; TINA and defective pricing; alleged CAS violations; cost accounting practice changes; alleged charging of unallowable and expressly unallowable costs; terminations; contract financing; price reduction clause issues; subcontracting and supply chain compliance; specialty metals compliance; and small business and DBE compliance. He has litigated cost, accounting, and contract breach matters in the Court of Federal Claims and the ASBCA.

Peter is recognized for his work both in False Claims Act and government contract disputes by Chambers USA, which notes that “He is absolutely outstanding. He is thoughtful and client-focused.” Chambers also notes that “Peter’s judgment and problem solving ability is unique. He is a very good False Claims Act lawyer.”

Photo of Frederic Levy Frederic Levy

Fred Levy is senior counsel in the firm’s Government Contracts and White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Groups. He is a leading suspension and debarment lawyer, focusing his practice on the resolution of complex compliance and ethics issues. He has successfully represented numerous…

Fred Levy is senior counsel in the firm’s Government Contracts and White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Groups. He is a leading suspension and debarment lawyer, focusing his practice on the resolution of complex compliance and ethics issues. He has successfully represented numerous high-profile corporations and individuals under investigation by the government in civil and criminal matters, including False Claims Act cases, and in suspension and debarment proceedings to ensure their continued eligibility to participate in federal programs. He has also conducted numerous internal investigations on behalf of corporate clients and advises corporations on voluntary or mandatory disclosures to federal agencies. Fred regularly counsels clients on government contract performance issues, claims and terminations, and litigates matters before the boards of contract appeals and in the Federal Circuit.

Related to his work involving program fraud, Fred counsels clients in the area of contractor “responsibility.” He is involved in the development and implementation of contractor ethics and compliance programs that meet the standards of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and Sarbanes-Oxley, and he regularly conducts ethics and compliance training.

Fred is a principal editor of Guide to the Mandatory Disclosure Rule, and of The Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension and Debarment, 4th Edition. He is a vice-chair of the Debarment and Suspension Committee of the ABA Public Contract Law Section, and a former co-chair of that committee and of the Procurement Fraud Committee. He is a graduate of Columbia College and Columbia Law School.

Photo of Michael Wagner Michael Wagner

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and…

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and enforcement actions.

Mike regularly represents contractors in federal and state compliance and enforcement matters relating to a range of procurement laws and regulations. He has particular experience handling investigations and litigation brought under the civil False Claims Act, and he routinely counsels government contractors on mandatory and voluntary disclosure considerations under the FAR, DFARS, and related regulatory regimes. He also represents contractors in high-stakes suspension and debarment matters at the federal and state levels, and he has served as Co-Chair of the ABA Suspension & Debarment Committee and is principal editor of the American Bar Association’s Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension & Debarment (4th ed.) (2018).

Mike also has extensive experience representing companies pursuing and negotiating grants, cooperative agreements, and Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs). In this regard, he has particular familiarity with the semiconductor and clean energy industries, and he has devoted substantial time in recent years to advising clients on strategic considerations for pursuing opportunities under the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

In his counseling practice, Mike regularly advises government contractors and suppliers on best practices for managing the rapidly-evolving array of cybersecurity and supply chain security rules and requirements. In particular, he helps companies assess and navigate domestic preference and country-of-origin requirements under the Buy American Act (BAA), Trade Agreements Act (TAA), Berry Amendment, and DOD Specialty Metals regulation. He also assists clients in managing product and information security considerations related to overseas manufacture and development of Information and Communication Technologies & Services (ICTS).

Mike serves on Covington’s Hiring Committee and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Summer Associate Program. He is a frequent writer and speaker on issues relating to procurement fraud and contractor responsibility, and he has served as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Photo of Michael Pierce Michael Pierce

Michael Pierce is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group. He assists clients on a broad range of government contracting issues, with an emphasis on claims, disputes, and investigations.

Mike has an…

Michael Pierce is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group. He assists clients on a broad range of government contracting issues, with an emphasis on claims, disputes, and investigations.

Mike has an active investigations practice. He has represented numerous government contractors in responding to civil investigative demands and subpoenas, in addition to helping clients assess potential exposure prior to receipt of government demands. He routinely conducts investigations related to the False Claims Act, including counselling government contractors on its disclosure obligations and mitigation measures.

Mike also represents contractors in a variety of claims and disputes, including prime-subcontractor disputes and debarment actions brought by federal and state entities. He has successfully assisted clients in mitigating the effects of terminations for default, defending defective pricing claims, and arbitrating disputes related to complex teaming agreements. Mike has advised leading contractors on numerous high-stakes issues—including allegations of providing latently defective parts—in disputes with primes, subcontractors, and the government.