Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2006, the U.S. Army Contracting Agency solicited bids for repair, maintenance, and construction services at Fort Rucker, Alabama, with indefinite delivery and quantity terms. The mechanism for pricing such jobs involves identification of costs and multiplication by certain “coefficients” set in the contract. It was well known that construction costs in the region had increased after Hurricane Katrina, 15 months before the government solicited bids. The Army awarded the contract to Lakeshore in 2007. In 2008, Lakeshore began 78 construction projects at Fort Rucker. When the Army exercised its option to extend the contract, it increased payments based on the contract’s price-adjustment clause. Lakeshore began 74 more delivery orders. After two years under the contract, Lakeshore concluded that it had incurred higher costs than were covered by payments under the contract and requested an equitable adjustment. The government denied the request. Acting under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101, the contracting officer denied a claim for recovery of $1,996,152.40. The Claims Court rejected claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied warranty, and mistake on summary judgment, stating that the government was not obliged to provide accurate local prices or to bear “economic consequences if one or more prices in the guide proved inaccurate.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Lakeshore Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Relators filed several related qui tam actions against government contractors, including Cisco, alleging that they committed fraud against the government by means of a kickback and defective pricing schemes in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. 51-52, and other federal statutes. The government intervened in the action against Cisco, adopted the relators' complaint, and settled the action. Relators' action was dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement and the district court awarded relators over eight million dollars. The government appealed. Based on the court's decision in Roberts v. Accenture, LLP, the court concluded that the district court did not err by refusing to apply Rule 9(b) pleading standards when determining whether relators were entitled to a statutory share of the government's recovery under section 3730(d)(1). The court also concluded that the district court correctly awarded relators a share of the government's recovery. Finally, the district court correctly awarded relators a share of the settlement funds the government received from both Cisco and its distributor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rille, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Cunningham worked for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in 2004-2005. He appealed his termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging discrimination based on marital status. Cunningham agreed to withdraw his appeal; OPM agreed to pay him $50,000. The agreement designated the OPM’s director of human resources as the contact for reference inquiries and permitted disclosure of dates of service only. The termination letter was to be removed from the personnel file and both parties were prohibited from disclosing the agreement or the grievance. In 2006, Cunningham accepted a position with USIS, a private company that contracts with federal agencies to perform background investigations. A week after Cunningham began training USIS suspended him without pay at the direction of OPM's security office. OPM employees (not the Director of Human Resources) had discussed Cunningham’s termination. An administrative judge found that OPM had breached the agreement, but that MSPB could not award damages. Cunningham was only entitled to rescind the agreement, reinstate his appeal, and return the $50,000 payment. MSPB adopted the findings. Cunningham did not want his appeal reinstated and sought breach-of-contract damages. The Claims Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, but dismissed based on res judicata. The Federal Circuit vacated, agreeing that the court had jurisdiction, but holding that res judicata did not apply because jurisdictional limits on the MSPB did not permit him to seek damages in the prior matter.View "Cunningham v. United States" on Justia Law

Fisher-Cal filed suit alleging that the Air Force violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., when the Air Force opted not to renew a contract for multimedia services with Fisher-Cal and decided to in-source the services. On appeal, Fisher-Cal challenged the district court's appeal of its suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court accepted the reasoning of the Federal Circuit in Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, which held that lawsuits involving decisions whether to in-source or contract fell within the jurisdiction of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491. Accordingly, Fisher-Cal's challenge to the Air Force's decision to in-source was governed by the Tucker Act and therefore the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over the challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fisher-Cal Indus., Inc. v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

In connection with construction of a pipeline to ship natural gas from Wyoming to Eastern Ohio, Rockies Express and Minerals Management Service (MMS), within the Department of the Interior, entered into contracts containing Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) provisions. Under the RIK program, the government receives its royalty for mineral resources extracted under federal leases “in kind,” i.e., in natural gas, rather than in cash, 30 U.S.C. 192; 42 U.S.C. 15902(b). In exchange, the government makes monthly payments to ensure that a certain quantity of the mineral resources is made available for its purposes. The government then enters into processing and transportation contracts to sell the mineral royalties, often at a substantial profit over royalties received in cash. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals determined that MMS had materially breached the contract, but that Rockies Express was only entitled to damages that had accrued before the Secretary of the Interior announced a decision to phase-out RIK contracts. The Federal Circuit affirmed that MMS materially breached the contract, but reversed the decision to limit damages. Rockies Express is entitled to compensatory damages to put it in as good a position as that in which it would have been put by full performance of the contract.View "Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC v. Salazar" on Justia Law

In the early 2000s, Raytheon underwent a major reorganization, including the sale of several business segments, including AIS, Optical, and Aerospace (segments at issue). As part of each sale, Raytheon retained the assets and liabilities of defined-benefit pension plans associated with the segments. Raytheon also calculated segment closing adjustments as required by CFR Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). Raytheon determined that some of its segments had pension surpluses, but the segments at issue had deficits. Although Raytheon paid the government its share of the surpluses, the government refused to pay its share of the deficits. Raytheon submitted certified claims for recovery of the deficits under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7103 (2011). The contracting officer issued final decisions denying these claims, reasoning that the adjustments were subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s timely funding requirement, 48 CFR 31.205-6(j)(2)(i), and the deficits were therefore unallowable because Raytheon failed to fund the full amount of the pension deficits in the same year as the closings and that Raytheon’s segment closing calculations “do[] not comply with CAS 413[.]” The Claims Court awarded Raytheon $59.209,967 and rejected a claim for recovery with respect to one segment, finding that Raytheon applied the wrong asset allocation method in its adjustment calculation. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Raytheon Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Medicare (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) reimbursement includes an adjustment for “disproportionate share hospitals” (DSH), that serve high numbers of low-income patients. The calculation formula takes into account the number of patient days for those patients eligible for Medicaid, and may also include patient days for those patients ineligible for Medicaid, but who received benefits under a Medicaid “demonstration project,” 42 U.S.C. 1315. The Medicare DSH formula was initially regarded by intermediaries, at least in some states, as including days covered under state general assistance (GA) and charity care programs. In 1999 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services clarified that the DSH formula only permitted the inclusion of patient days wherein the patients were eligible for Medicaid, excluding state general assistance and charity plan patient days, but, under the final rule hospitals could count patient days for individuals covered under a Section 1115 waiver project. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 essentially ratified the rule. The district court concluded that the regulation was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, reasoning there was no rational basis to exclude from reimbursements patients covered by Pennsylvania’s General Assistance plan, while including patients covered under a federal statutory waiver program. The Third Circuit reversed. View "Nazareth Hosp. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Project labor agreements (PLAs) are used in the construction industry to set common conditions of employment for large projects involving multiple subcontractors and unions. On a public construction project, a PLA can be entered into by the governmental unit paying for the project or by its general contractor; the other party is a labor organization. If the governmental unit enters into a PLA, all contractors bidding on the project must agree to abide by it. Opponents argue that PLAs discourage nonunion contractors from bidding on government contracts and increase construction costs. Proponents, such as the trades councils, claim that PLAs enhance job-site cooperation and reduce labor disputes. The federal government has gone back and forth on allowing PLAs. Michigan passed the first version of the Fair and Open Competition in Governmental Construction Act in 2011, restricting the use of PLAs on publicly funded projects. Following entry of an injunction, that version was superseded by an amended act, passed in 2012. The district court enjoined the current version as preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the act furthers Michigan’s proprietary goal of improving efficiency in public construction projects, and is no broader than necessary to meet those goals. View "MI Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Before the invasion of Iraq, KBR entered into contracts with the U.S. Army for the provision of dining facility (DFAC) services in Iraq. The contract at issue was for DFAC services at Camp Anaconda, one of the largest U.S. bases in Iraq. KBR subcontracted with Tamimi to provide services in Anaconda. As troop levels increased, the Defense Contract Auditing Agency (DCAA) engaged in audits of DFAC subcontracts. With respect to Anaconda, the DCAA concluded that KBR had charged $41.1 million in unreasonable costs for services provided from July 2004 to December 2004 and declined to pay KBR that amount. KBR sued and the government brought counterclaims, including a claim under the Anti-Kickback Act. The Court of Federal Claims held that KBR was entitled to $11,460,940.31 in reasonable costs and dismissed the majority of the government’s counterclaims, but awarded $38,000.00 on the AKA claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed the determination of cost reasonableness and dismissal of the government’s Fraud and False Claims Act claims and common-law fraud claim. The court remanded in part, holding that the Claims Court improperly calculated KBR’s base fee and erred in determining that the actions of KBR’s employees should not be imputed to KBR for purposes of the AKA. . View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the trial and intermediate courts determined that a general contractor was not a statutory employer relative to an employee of its subcontractor. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the tension between such rulings and the Supreme Court’s longstanding jurisprudence that conventional subcontract scenarios serve as paradigm instances in which the statutory-employment concept applies. Appellant Worthington Associates, Inc., was hired as the general contractor for an addition to a Levittown church. Worthington, in turn, entered into a standard-form subcontract with Patton Construction, Inc., of which Appellee Earl Patton was the sole shareholder and an employee, to perform carpentry. While working at the construction site, Mr. Patton fell and sustained injuries to his back. Subsequently, the Pattons commenced a civil action against Worthington contending that the company failed to maintain safe conditions at the jobsite. Worthington moved for summary judgment on the basis that it was Mr. Patton’s statutory employer and, accordingly, was immune from suit. After the motion was denied, trial proceeded during which Worthington reasserted its claim to immunity in unsuccessful motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict. "Having set up an errant dichotomy for the jurors, the [trial] court proceeded to instruct them concerning the differences between independent contractors and employees at common law. In doing so, the trial court compounded the underlying conceptual difficulties it had engendered, because [the Supreme] Court has long held that, for the salient purposes under Sections 203 and 302(b) of the WCA, the term 'independent contractor' carries a narrower meaning than it does at common law." The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Pattons in the amount of $1.5 million in the aggregate. Post-trial motions were denied, and Worthington appealed. A Superior Court panel affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Mr. Patton’s relationship with the owner here was undeniably a derivative one, arising per a conventional subcontract with a general contractor (Worthington). "[U]nder longstanding precedent, neither Patton Construction, Inc., nor Mr. Patton was an 'independent contractor' relative to Worthington." View "Patton v. Worthington Associates" on Justia Law