Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2010, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded ECCI a contract to design and build a military compound in Afghanistan. In 2014, ECCI sought compensation for construction delays allegedly attributable to the government. After six years of unsuccessful settlement discussions, followed by a nine-day hearing before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the government—three months after the hearing—successfully moved to dismiss ECCI’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to state a “sum certain.”The Federal Circuit reversed. The requirement, established by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that claims submitted under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101–7109, state a “sum certain”—i.e., specify the precise dollar amount sought as relief—is not jurisdictional and is subject to forfeiture. The court noted the Supreme Court’s direction to “police this jurisdictional line.” Congress did not clearly state that a claim submitted under the CDA must include a sum certain: the sum-certain requirement is not even in the CDA itself. A claim that does not state a sum certain has not sufficiently pleaded the elements of a claim under the CDA and may be denied by the contracting officer and dismissed on appeal for failure to state a claim. If a party challenges a deficient sum certain after litigation has far progressed, however, that defense may be deemed forfeited. View "ECC International Constructors, LLC v. Secretary of the Army" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court judge granting summary judgment in favor of BSC Companies, Inc., BSC Group, Inc., and the companies' president (collectively, BSC) in this action brought by BSC's former employees alleging claims under the Prevailing Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 26-27H, holding that the contracts at issue were not governed by the Act, and BSC was not required to pay its employees a prevailing wage pursuant to the contracts.At issue were two professional engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to BSC. The contracts were not competitively bid and were not awarded to the lowest bidder, unlike contracts for public works construction projects governed by the Act. Further, the contracts did not specify that BSC's employees would be paid at least a prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor Standards. The superior court judge granted summary judgment to BSC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to a prevailing wage for their work under the professional services contracts. View "Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Johnson was the councilman in Cleveland’s Buckeye-Shaker neighborhood for 41 years. Jamison was his executive assistant. For years, Johnson used his position to fraudulently claim federal reimbursements for payments he never made. He also secured employment for his children in federally funded programs, although they were not legally eligible to work in such positions. Johnson deposited their earnings into his own account. In addition, Johnson fraudulently claimed a series of tax deductions. He encouraged and assisted his son Elijah in submitting falsified records for Elijah’s grand-jury testimony. Jamison assisted Johnson in these crimes. Johnson and Jamison were convicted on 15 charges, including federal program theft under 18 U.S.C. 371, 666(a)(1)(A) and (2); tax fraud, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2); and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(b) and 1519. Johnson was sentenced to 72 months in prison. Jamison was sentenced to 60 months.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the district court’s loss calculations and to sentencing enhancements for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, for using a minor, and for obstructing justice. The district court properly admitted “other acts” evidence of prior misuse of campaign funds. Any other errors in evidentiary rulings were harmless. View "United States v. Jamison" on Justia Law

If a borrower defaults on a loan guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the lender asks the SBA to purchase the outstanding balance of the defaulted loan. The SBA then decides whether to honor the guarantee after reviewing the paperwork to ensure that the loan complied with SBA requirements. A lender can retain a lending service provider (LSP) to package, originate, disburse, service, or liquidate SBA-guaranteed loans on the lender’s behalf. The five defendants worked at, or with, an LSP, and engaged in a scheme to obtain SBA guarantees for loans that did not meet the SBA’s guidelines and requirements. They made false statements on loan-guarantee applications and purchase requests sent to the SBA about matters such as borrowers’ eligibility to receive a loan and how loan proceeds would be disbursed.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution, 18 U.S.C. 1349, and wire fraud affecting a financial institution, section 1343) and their sentences. The court rejected arguments concerning a constructive amendment to the indictment, that the government did not prove that the wire fraud scheme deprived the SBA of a protectable money or property interest, jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and loss calculation. View "United States v. Griffin" on Justia Law

From 2011-2017, Care Specialists provided care to homebound Medicare beneficiaries. At least part of its operation was fraudulent. Care Specialists would submit Medicare claims for health services, including skilled nursing services, provided to many patients who did not qualify for Medicare reimbursement. Newton, a quality assurance specialist and the owner’s secretary, helped implement the scheme. A former Care Specialists employee, Bolender, filed a whistleblower letter describing the scheme and met with federal investigators, directly implicating Newton as a key figure in the conspiracy. The owners pleaded guilty. Newton was convicted of conspiracy to commit both health care fraud and wire fraud, following testimony from multiple Care Specialists employees. Bolender avoided testifying by invoking her rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Newton unsuccessfully argued that the court wrongly accepted the invocation and that the government’s refusal to grant Bolender immunity violated her due process rights.The Seventh Circuit affirmed Newton’s conviction. The government's actions did not distort the fact-finding process; Bolender’s testimony was just as likely, if not more likely, to inculpate Newton as it was to exculpate her. Bolender’s invocation of her rights under the Fifth Amendment had been proper because she potentially could have opened herself up to prosecution. The court vacated Newton’s sentence. The district court’s calculation of Medicare’s loss attributable to Newton was unreasonable. View "United States v. Newton" on Justia Law

The 1996 E-Rate program (Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support program, Telecommunications Act 110 Stat. 56), is intended to keep telecommunications services affordable for schools and libraries in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. The program subsidizes services and requires providers to charge these customers rates less than or equal to the lowest rates they charge to similarly situated customers. Heath brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, alleging that Wisconsin Bell charged schools and libraries more than was allowed under the program, causing the federal government to pay more than it should have. The district court granted Wisconsin Bell summary judgment.The Seventh Circuit reversed. While Heath’s briefing and evidence focused more on which party bore the burden of proving violations than on identifying specific violations in his voluminous exhibits and lengthy expert report, Heath identified enough specific evidence of discriminatory pricing to allow a reasonable jury to find that Wisconsin Bell, acting with the required scienter, charged specific schools and libraries more than it charged similarly situated customers. It is reasonable to infer that government funds were involved and that if the government knew of actual overcharges, it would not approve claims. View "Heath v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc." on Justia Law

Five Petitioners argued the Board’s grant-for-study procedure is an unauthorized way to extend the 60-day deadline. A statute requires the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) to make a reasoned decision when granting reconsideration.   The Second Appellate District granted Petitioners, the Board, and Amicus Curiae’s requests for judicial notice of items relating to the legislative and statutory history of the Board’s reconsideration procedure and to the Board’s records. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Board to end its practice of granting petitions for reconsideration solely for purposes of further study and to comply with section 5908.5 when granting petitions for reconsideration, including the requirement that the Board “state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for its decision.” The court also held that the Board is not required to issue a final ruling on the merits within 60 days. Statutory language negates the Petitioners’ argument to the contrary. View "Earley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Dakota Energy Power Cooperative, Inc., a member of East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., sought to withdraw from East River and to terminate the parties’ long-term power contract so that it could purchase electricity from another source. When East River resisted, Dakota Energy sued for anticipatory breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment providing that it had a contractual right to withdraw from East River by way of a buyout. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of East River, and Dakota Energy appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that under the UCC, the terms of a written contract “may be explained or supplemented” by certain extrinsic evidence, including “usage of trade.” Dakota Energy’s proffered trade usage evidence would effectively add an entirely new provision to the WPC. Moreover, under the UCC, “the express terms of an agreement and any applicable . . . usage of trade must be construed whenever reasonable as consistent with each other.” Here, the express terms of the WPC—which provide that the agreement will “remain in effect” until December 31, 2075, and which contain no provision allowing for an early buyout—are inconsistent with any trade usage evidence suggesting something to the contrary. Therefore, the court concluded that the WPC unambiguously requires Dakota Energy to purchase all of its electricity from East River until December 31, 2075, and that no provision in the WPC or East River’s Bylaws allows for an earlier termination of that obligation. View "Dakota Energy Coop, Inc. v. East River Electric Power Coop., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner Green Development, LLC (Green Development) sought interconnection with the distribution system of Narragansett Electric Company (Narragansett), a public utility. Accommodation of the increased flows of electricity required certain upgrades to the transmission system owned by Respondent-Intervenor New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid (NE Power). NE Power assigned the costs of the transmission system upgrades directly to Narragansett. The newly assigned costs were reflected in a revised transmission service agreement (TSA) that NE Power and Narragansett filed for approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). Green Development protested the revised TSA. The Commission denied Green Development’s protest.  Green Development petitions for review contending that the Commission (1) erroneously concluded that Green Development’s arguments in the underlying section 205 proceeding operated as a “collateral attack” on the Complaint Order; (2) improperly applied the governing seven-factor test; (3) misinterpreted the Tariff’s definition of “direct assignment facilities”; and (4) erroneously failed to apply the filing procedures of Schedule 21-Local Service of the Tariff.   The DC Circuit denied the petitions. First, the court held that Commission has cured any purportedly erroneous ruling that Green Development’s section 205 protest constituted a collateral attack on the Complaint Order. The court rejected Green Development’s fourth claim. The court wrote that the issue with Green Development’s contention is that it presumes that the procedures in Schedule 21-Local Service are “mandatory processes” that applied to the filing of the TSA. But, the SIS and associated technical arrangements “pertain to initiating transmission service” and “do not demonstrate that Narragansett as an existing transmission customer was required to request new transmission service” under the Tariff. View "Green Development, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Petitioner Cboe Futures Exchange (CFE) announced plans to list futures contracts based on the Cboe Volatility Index, more commonly known as the “VIX Index.” The following year, the SEC and the CFTC issued a joint order “excluding certain indexes comprised of options on broad-based security indexes”—including the VIX—“from the definition of the term narrow-based security index.” The petition, in this case, challenged the SEC’s 2020 order treating SPIKES futures as futures.   The DC Circuit granted the petition. The court explained that the SEC did not adequately explain why SPIKES futures must be regulated as futures to promote competition with VIX futures. However, the court wrote that while it vacates the Commission’s order, it will withhold issuance of our mandate for three calendar months to allow market participants sufficient time to wind down existing SPIKES futures transactions with offsetting transactions. The court explained that the Exemptive Order never mentions the futures disclosures. And at any rate, those disclosures only partially fill the void left by the absence of the Disclosure Statement. As with the Exemptive Order’s exceptions and conditions, the futures disclosures do not address any number of matters covered by the Disclosure Statement. And even when the two sets of disclosures overlap, the Disclosure Statement tends to provide much greater detail than the futures disclosures. View "Cboe Futures Exchange, LLC v. SEC" on Justia Law