Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a qui tam suit under the Minnesota False Claims Act (MFCA), Minnesota Statutes Annotated 15C.01 et seq., and the federal False Claims Acts (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., against UMMC, alleging that UMMC fraudulently induced MDHS to overreimburse it for services provided to Medical Assistance (MA) patients. The district court granted UMMC's motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint for a third time. Plaintiff alleges that UMMC's false or fraudulent claim is that it's children's unit was a "children's hospital." The court concluded that, in the absence of a statutory definition of "children's hospital," it was reasonable for UMMC to inquire about the proper classification of its children's unit. A reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language does not give rise to a FCA claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not incorrectly hold plaintiff to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard; plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to demonstrate that UMMC violated section 3729(a)(1)(G); and the court found no violation of section 3729(a)(1)(C). Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's proposed amendments would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Olson v. Fairview Health Serv." on Justia Law

Appellant City of Allentown (City) contracted with appellee A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (ASE), to construct a new public road. After arsenic-contaminated soil was discovered at the worksite, the City suspended work on the project. Following testing, it was determined construction could resume if precautions were taken. Accordingly, the City instructed ASE to obtain revised permits and proceed with the project. However, the existing contract did not include terms regarding the potential for contaminated soil, despite the fact the City was aware there might be contamination prior to entering into the contract, and ASE declined to proceed, explaining it would incur substantial additional costs due to the contaminated soil. The parties made several attempts to reach an agreement in which ASE would continue the construction, but to no avail. Consequently, ASE sued the City to recover its losses on the project, alleged breach of contract, and sought compensation under theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, as well as interest and a statutory penalty and fee award for violations of the prompt pay provisions of the Procurement Code. After a trial, a jury found the City breached its contract with ASE and also withheld payments in bad faith. In this discretionary appeal, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether an award of a statutory penalty and attorney fees under the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth’s Procurement Code was mandatory upon a finding of bad faith, irrespective of the statute’s permissive phrasing. The Court held such an award was not mandatory, and therefore reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "A. Scott Enterprises v. City of Allentown" on Justia Law

In 2003, the government awarded Laguna a contract for Worldwide Environmental Remediation and Construction (WERC). Under the contract, Laguna received 16 cost-reimbursable task orders to perform work in Iraq, and awarded subcontracts to several subcontractors. The physical work under the contract was completed by 2010. Laguna sought reimbursement of past costs, a portion of which the government refused to pay after an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the government alleged that it was not liable because Laguna had committed a prior material breach by accepting subcontractor kickbacks (18 U.S.C. 371, 41 U.S.C. 53), excusing the government’s nonperformance. Three of Laguna’s officers were ultimately indicted for kickbacks. The Board granted the government summary judgment on that ground, The Federal Circuit affirmed. Laguna committed the first material breach by violating the contract’s Allowable Cost and Payment clause because its vouchers were improperly inflated to include the payment, Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.216-7. View "Laguna Constr. Co. v. Carter" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action alleging that Bi-State and Eager Road made false claims to receive federal public-transit funds through the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration. The district court denied Bi-State’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the issue of Bi-State's immunity is not properly before the court. At no point during the proceedings before the district court did Bi-State claim that it was entitled to sovereign immunity. Bi-State’s motion for summary judgment argued only that it is not a “person” under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, and the district court’s denial of summary judgement addressed only that question. View "United States ex rel Fields v. Bi-State Dev. Agency" on Justia Law

The Department of Education contracts with private collection agencies for services related to resolving defaulted student loans through the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), which provides federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining supplies and services. FSS contractors are pre-approved. Orders placed against GSA Schedule contracts are “considered to be issued using full and open competition.” In 2008, Education issued a Request for Quotations for debt collection services, seeking to issue Task Orders under an existing GSA Schedule contract. Pioneer, Enterprise, and others were awarded identical Task Orders, containing a base term and an Option permitting the government to unilaterally extend the term up to 24 months; the contractor could earn extensions beyond the base period and options, based upon the quality of performance during evaluation periods. In 2014, Education began secretly auditing the contractors, counting violations of consumer protection laws. Based on their error rates, Education decided not to issue Pioneer or Enterprise award-term Task Orders, although they scored “excellent or better” under the contract-based evaluation system. The companies filed suit, challenging Education’s proposed issuance of extensions to their competitors. The Claims Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1)). The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that issuance of a new Task Order constituted the award of a contract, an action over which that court has jurisdiction. There is no exception for new Task Orders arising from an award-term extension. View "Coast Prof'l, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2011, Horning won the subcontract for roofing work at the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The Davis‐Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. 3141–43, requires contractors who perform construction for the federal government to pay their workers the “prevailing wage.” Department of Labor regulations at that time set the base rate for a Dayton Sheet Metal Worker at $26.41 per hour; the fringe benefit rate was another $16.82 an hour. The workers were properly classified and received the appropriate base rate. All employees who work at Horning for more than 90 days are eligible for insurance; some receive vacation days. After a year, they become eligible for matching contributions to a 401(k) account. Accountants advised Horning about the amount to deposit into its benefits trust to comply with ERISA and Davis‐Bacon. Horning deducted a flat hourly fee from the paycheck of each Medical Center worker, regardless of whether the employee was eligible for any benefits. The amount did not correspond to the actual monetary value of the benefits each individual employee received. The Union filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729–3733, rather than filing under Davis-Bacon. The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of Horning. Under the False Claims Act, the Union had to show that Horning knowingly made false statements (or misleading omissions) that were material to the government’s payment decision. The Union did not proffer enough evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Horning acted with such knowledge. View "Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Assoc. v. Horning Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

William Charles Construction (WCC) entered into a labor agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation for the “Biggsville” construction project to expand a section of Rt. 34 to four lanes. A jurisdictional dispute between two unions, each claiming the right for their member drivers to operate large trucks involved in the excavation work, was resolved by an arbitrator. Later, a Joint Grievance Committee (JGC) determined, under a subordinated collective bargaining agreement, that WCC owed the Teamsters back pay and fringe benefit contributions ($1.4 million) for having assigned the operation of heavy trucks to the International Union of Operating Engineers rather than the Teamsters. A second JGC award determined that WCC was liable for two days’ back pay for having assigned work to two Teamsters in violation of other Teamsters’ seniority rights. WCC filed a declaratory action under the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185. The court granted the Teamsters summary judgment, finding that WCC filed its complaint outside the statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to the Teamsters and dismissed the Teamsters’ counterclaim for enforcement of one of the JGC awards. WCC's challenge to the awards is not barred by the statute of limitations because WCC did not receive notice of their final entry. The greater of the two JGC awards is void because WCC did not agree to arbitration by the JGC. View "William Charles Constr. Co., LLC v. Teamsters Local Union 627" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action against Phillip Morris, alleging that the company violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, by charging NEXCOM and AAFES prices for cigarettes that violate the terms of their contracts. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim under the FCA's public disclosure bar. The court concluded that the transactions that relator contends create an inference of fraud were publicly disclosed through a statutorily enumerated channel, triggering the jurisdictional bar. The court further concluded that relator does not possess any direct information about the underlying transactions that would allow him to rescue his claim from the jurisdictional bar by qualifying as an original source. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

A Massachusetts’ Medicaid beneficiary received services at Arbour, a mental health facility owned by Universal’s subsidiary. The teenager had an adverse reaction to a medication that a purported doctor prescribed after diagnosing her with bipolar disorder. She died of a seizure. Her parents discovered that few Arbour employees were licensed to provide mental health counseling or to prescribe medications without supervision. They filed a qui tam suit, alleging violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), which imposes penalties on anyone who “knowingly presents . . . a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A). They alleged an “implied false certification theory of liability,” which treats a payment request as an implied certification of compliance with relevant statutes, regulations, or contract requirements that are material conditions of payment. They cited Universal’s failure to disclose serious violations of Massachusetts Medicaid regulations and claimed that Medicaid would have refused to pay the claims had it known of the violations. The First Circuit reversed dismissal, in part. A unanimous Supreme Court vacated. The FCA does not define a “false” or “fraudulent” claim; the claims at issue may be actionable because they do more than merely demand payment. Representations that state the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information, can be actionable misrepresentations. By conveying specific information about services without disclosing violations of staff and licensing requirements, Universal’s claims constituted misrepresentations. FCA liability for failing to disclose violations of legal requirements does not depend upon whether those requirements were expressly designated as conditions of payment. While statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements are not automatically material, even if labeled as conditions of payment, a defendant can have “actual knowledge” that a condition is material even if the government does not expressly call it a condition of payment. View "Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to set annual goals for contracting with service-disabled and other veteran-owned small businesses, 38 U.S.C. 8127(a). The “Rule of Two” provides that a contracting officer “shall award contracts” by restricting competition to veteran-owned small businesses if the officer reasonably expects that at least two such businesses will submit offers and that “the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.” A contracting officer “may” use noncompetitive and sole-source contracts for contracts below specific dollar amounts. In 2012, the Department used the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), a streamlined method for acquisition of goods and services under prenegotiated terms, to procure medical center Emergency Notification Services from a non-veteran-owned business. The agreement ended in 2013. A service-disabled-veteran-owned small business filed a Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest, alleging that the Department procured multiple contracts through the FSS without employing the Rule of Two. The GAO determined that the Department’s actions were unlawful. The Department declined to follow the GAO’s nonbinding recommendation. The Federal Circuit held that the Department was only required to apply the Rule when necessary to satisfy its annual goals. The Supreme Court reversed, first holding that it had jurisdiction because the controversy is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Section 8127(d)’s contracting procedures are mandatory and apply to all of the Department’s contracting determinations. An FSS order is a “contract” within the ordinary meaning of that term and does not fall outside Section 8127(d). The Court rejected an argument that the Rule of Two will hamper mundane Government purchases as misapprehending current FSS practices, which have expanded beyond simple procurement to contracts concerning complex services over a multiyear period. View "Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law