As previously discussed on this blog, the Supreme Court announced last year that it would resolve a circuit split over when a relator needed to file a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Earlier this month, the Court decided in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, that relators can … Continue Reading
This week, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released formal guidelines (“the Guidelines”) for awarding credit to entities that cooperate in False Claims Act (“FCA”) investigations. Frequently hinted at by DOJ officials in recent speeches and public statements, the Guidelines have been eagerly anticipated by practitioners in the FCA space. Despite the build-up, the Guidelines are … Continue Reading
The motivating force behind the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”) is its provision for qui tam enforcement, which authorizes private parties (aka relators) to initiate FCA cases on behalf of the United States. Id. § 3730(b)(1). Immediately after re-invigoration of the FCA in 1986, scholars and litigants questioned the constitutional validity of … Continue Reading
When does a private party need to file a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”)? Such a seemingly simple question has resulted in three different answers from six different courts. This past Friday, November 16, 2018, the Supreme Court announced it would resolve that circuit split — by granting a request to … Continue Reading
Last year, we wrote about a trial court’s decision to dismiss a False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaint regarding alleged Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) non-compliances because the relator failed to plead fraud with “particularity” under Rule 9(b). That decision offered a sweeping rebuke of speculative FCA claims, and emphasized why it can be difficult to present … Continue Reading
Due to the government’s increased focus on domestic preference requirements – for example, through President Trump’s formal policy and action plan for agencies to “scrupulously monitor, enforce, and comply” with the so-called “Buy American Laws,” and Congress’s proposed legislation to make certain Buy American requirements more robust – contractors should not be surprised if there … Continue Reading
[A modified version of this blog post was published in Law360.] Last month, Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced legislation to “improve the requirement to purchase domestic commodities or products” under the National School Lunch Program (the “NSLP”) and the School Breakfast Program (the “SPB”). Even if this legislation fails to make … Continue Reading
In Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), the Supreme Court changed the landscape for False Claims Act litigation. The Court endorsed implied certification liability in certain circumstances, but set a high bar for demonstrating the materiality of a violation of law, regulation, or contract to the government’s … Continue Reading
Contractors that must comply with the government’s domestic preference laws should take note of United States ex rel. Folliard v. Comstor Corp., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2018 WL 1567620 (D.D.C. 2018) — a recent decision dismissing a country-of-origin fraud lawsuit initiated by serial relator Brady Folliard.… Continue Reading
On April 24, 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Notice and Request for Comment on draft guidance that DoD proposes for assessing contractors’ System Security Plans (SSPs) and their implementation of the security controls in NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171. This includes assessments as part of source selection decisions and during contract performance. DFARS … Continue Reading
Last year, the Supreme Court’s watershed Escobar ruling altered the landscape of False Claims Act litigation when it declared that the FCA’s materiality requirement presented a “demanding” barrier to plaintiffs alleging contractual non-compliance. In the 15 months since that time, lower courts have issued a steady stream of rulings interpreting and refining this standard. In … Continue Reading
In Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), the Supreme Court changed the landscape for False Claims Act litigation. The Court endorsed implied certification liability, but set a high bar for demonstrating the materiality of a violation of law, regulation, or contract to the government’s payment decision. More … Continue Reading
Two years ago, in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, the Supreme Court interpreted the “first-to-file” bar of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) in a manner that seemingly authorizes relators to pursue qui tam suits based upon the same allegations made in previously dismissed FCA actions. On remand from … Continue Reading
The Department of Defense (“DoD”) held an “Industry Information Day” on June 23, 2017 to address questions regarding DFARS Case 2013-D018 “Network Penetration and Reporting for Cloud Services,” including DFARS clauses 252.204-7012 “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting” and 252.239-7010 “Cloud Computing Services.” DoD’s presentation lasted approximately four hours and covered a wide range of … Continue Reading
In a recent False Claims Act (“FCA”) case, United States ex rel. Louis Scutellaro v. Capitol Supply, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the defendant’s failure to retain Country of Origin (“COO”) documentation for the products it sold to the government entitled the relator and the government to an … Continue Reading
Under a new FAR rule, standard language in confidentiality agreements could lead to disqualification from contracting or False Claims Act liability.… Continue Reading
A U.S. District Court recently dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam action alleging that numerous GSA Schedule contractors violated their obligations under the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), resulting in the submission of false claims under the “implied certification” theory of FCA liability. As discussed further below, the court’s decision — United States ex rel. Berkowitz … Continue Reading
Two years ago, when the Supreme Court addressed the “first-to-file” bar of the False Claims Act (FCA) in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, it predicted that its holding might “produce practical problems,” as “[t]he False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions present many interpretive challenges, and it is beyond … Continue Reading
Earlier this month, in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, the Supreme Court held that the False Claims Act (“FCA or Act”) does not require that a FCA qui tam complaint be dismissed because of a violation of the seal requirement. Writing for a unanimous Court to resolve the … Continue Reading
Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby over the False Claims Act’s (FCA) “seal requirement.” The controversy highlights an important statutory tool for government contractors who face allegations of making false claims for payment. It also provides important lessons for … Continue Reading
The Fourth Circuit recently held, in an unpublished opinion, that the anti-retaliation or “whistleblower” provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) protect an individual’s efforts to stop a contractor from violating the FCA, even when there is no “distinct possibility” of litigation. This “distinct possibility” standard was adopted prior to 2009 when the whistleblower provision … Continue Reading
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or the “Board”) recently issued an opinion addressing several important, and controversial, topics of interest to government contractors. The lengthy opinion addressed key issues related to the Board’s jurisdiction over government claims and affirmative defenses based on alleged contractor fraud, the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) statute of limitations, … Continue Reading
Last week, in Universal Health Services Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the viability of the “implied false certification” theory of False Claims Act liability, at least in certain circumstances. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Thomas explained that a defendant can face FCA liability under an implied certification theory … Continue Reading
On May 3, 2016, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (“RRB”) issued an interim final rule adjusting civil False Claims Act (“FCA”) and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (“PFCRA”) monetary penalty amounts for the RRB. The interim final rulemaking resulted in an increase of the PFCRA maximum to $10,781 and a new FCA range of $10,781-$21,563. … Continue Reading
