Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

DynCorp contracted with the U.S. Department of State to assist in the development of a civilian police force in Iraq and subcontracted with PMC for operations and maintenance support. PMC filed suit against DynCorp alleging that DynCorp breached its contract with PMC by making payments to one account instead of another. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of PMC's case against DynCorp as a sanction for its discovery malfeasance. The court rejected PMC's arguments on appeal because they did not support reversal of the district court's orders.View "Projects Mgmt. Co. v. DynCorp Int'l LLC" on Justia Law

Fuqua, a computational linguist, was hired by SVOX in 2009 to help market linguistic products. A few months later, SVOX approached Fuqua with a new employment contract that contained an inventions assignment clause that required Fuqua to disclose and assign to SVOX intellectual property that he made, conceived, or developed in the past and required assignment of his rights to patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and royalties to SVOX. Fuqua believed that the disclosure required by the new agreement would violate state and federal laws and refused to sign the contract. SVOX terminated Fuqua’s employment. Fuqua filed a complaint with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Defense (OIG), alleging violation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which prohibits reprisals for disclosures of wrongdoing relating to covered funds under the act. The OIG found that SVOX did not receive Recovery Act funds and declined to investigate further. The district court dismissed, finding that SVOX did not receive covered funds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Fuqua v. SVOX USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Orillo, her husband (a doctor), and another owned Chalice, a home health care provider. Chalice was an enrolled provider with Medicare and could seek reimbursement of home health care through that program. Orillo falsified forms by altering the codes and information that had been completed by the Chalice nurses to make the patient’s condition appear worse and the health care needs greater than the actuality. Those alterations caused Medicare software to generate different reimbursement rates Orillo also aided her husband in paying kickbacks to a Chicago doctor in return for referrals of Medicare patients. Orillo pled guilty to healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1347 and paying kickbacks to physicians for patient referrals under a federal health care program, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b and 18 U.S.C. 2, and was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. Orillo conceded that her scheme caused a loss, to Medicare, in excess of $400,000, and agreed to entry of a $500,000 forfeiture judgment.The district court determined that the loss amount for the healthcare fraud count was $744,481 and ordered her to pay that amount in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Orillo’s argument that the loss and restitution amount should be limited to only those stemming from visible alterations.View "United States v. Orillo" on Justia Law

A state agency issued a request for proposals for legal services. A law firm delivered its proposal after the submission deadline, but the procurement officer accepted the proposal and forwarded it to the evaluation committee. After the agency issued a notice of intent to award that law firm the contract, a second law firm protested, alleging that the evaluation committee made scoring errors and that consideration of the late-filed proposal was barred by a relevant regulation and the request for proposals. The procurement officer sustained the protest, rescinded the original award, and awarded the second law firm the contract. The first law firm then protested, claiming: (1) the second law firm’s protest should not have been considered because it was filed after the protest deadline; (2) the first law firm’s proposal was properly accepted because the delay in submission was immaterial; and (3) the second law firm’s proposal was nonresponsive because that firm lacked a certificate of authority to transact business in Alaska. The procurement officer rejected that protest and the first law firm filed an administrative appeal. The administrative agency denied the appeal, and the first law firm appealed the agency decision to the superior court, which affirmed the administrative agency ruling. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the administrative agency acted reasonably in accepting the second law firm’s late-filed protest and deeming that firm’s proposal responsive notwithstanding its lack of a certificate of authority. Furthermore, the Court concluded the agency’s interpretation that its regulation barred acceptance of the first firm’s late-filed proposal is reasonable and consistent with statute. Therefore, the Court affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding the final agency decision. View "Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. Alaska, Dept. of Administration" on Justia Law

Southern Rehabilitation Group and its medical director sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services and past and present Medicare contractors, seeking review of the Secretary’s final decision on 6,200 claims for Medicare reimbursement. The district court remanded so that the Secretary could pay the disputed amount. After payment, the case returned to the district court, which concluded that the claims for payment were moot and dismissed remaining constitutional and statutory claims as barred by jurisdictional provisions of the Medicare Act. The court also held that plaintiffs did not show that they were eligible to collect interest on their claims and that it did not have jurisdiction over 8,900 other claims that plaintiffs alleged were still in the administrative process. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims and on the 8,900 claims still in the administrative process, but reversed summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for interest. The Secretary could not rely on her unreasonable interpretation of the “clean-claims” statute as a basis for summary judgment concerning interest.View "S. Rehab. Grp. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

In 1998 Prazen retired as superintendent of the City of Peru electrical department. He had more than 27 years of service and purchased five years of age-enhancement credit. Prazen had an unincorporated electrical business, which was incorporated just before he retired. Before he retired, the City entered into an agreement with his corporation for operation of the City’s electrical department, including management and supervision. First year compensation under the contract was about $7,000 higher than Prazen’s prior annual salary. The relationship lasted until 2009, when the corporation was dissolved. In 2010, the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund notified Prazen that, after participating in the early retirement incentive plan, he had violated the statutory prohibitions (40 ILCS 5/7-141.1(g)) against returning to work. The Fund recalculated his years of service as 27 and claimed he should repay $307,100 as a statutory forfeiture. The circuit court agreed. The appellate court reversed and the Illinois Supreme Court agreed. The work done between 1999 and 2009 was done by a separate corporate entity and was not precluded by statute. If the legislature had wanted to specifically prohibit this, it could have said so. The statute does not show intent to prohibit outsourcing to a retired employee’s corporation and the legislature did not grant the Trustees of the Fund authority to find that a corporation was a “guise.” The court noted that, earlier in the period under consideration, the Board had expressed the view that what the arrangement was pView "Prazen v. Shoop" on Justia Law

Northern, operated by VanDuinen, was a general contractor on public construction projects, legally required to obtain surety bonds. Hanover was Northern’s bonding agent and required Northern to enter into an Indemnity Agreement, which VanDuinen signed in his individual capacity and as Northern’s President. The Midway Airport Project was financed by the FAA and managed by Parsons. In 2008 Northern won the bid and began subcontracting. in 2009 subcontractors complained that Northern failed to pay them in accordance with the bonds and contracts. Work was halted, resulting in a separate complaint, by Parsons, for failure to complete the Project as required. The FAA opted to retain possession of remaining contract funds, $127,086.00, pending resolution of the disputes and completion of the work. Hanover received claims from subcontractors McDaniel ($127,452.78) and Rex Electric ($78,495.00) and a claim for performance from Parsons. Hanover demanded collateral under the Agreement. Northern refused to post collateral or to indemnify Hanover. In 2009 McDaniel filed for bankruptcy; the bankruptcy trustee sued Hanover seeking payment for work performed. In 2012, Hanover paid the trustee $127,452.78 to resolve both McDaniels’s and Rex Electric’s claims. Hanover resolved Parson’s claim by stepping in as general contractor and arranging for completion of the Project. Parsons paid Hanover the $127,086.00 of contract funds the FAA had withheld. Hanover sued Northern and VanDuinen. The district court granted summary judgment in Hanover’s favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Agreement is unambiguous. Northern breached it, and Hanover is entitled to contractual damages. View "Hanover Ins. Co. v. Northern Bldg. Co." on Justia Law

These appeals concerned a suit filed under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and two bankruptcy proceedings. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy trustee had exclusive standing to assert the FCA claims at issue because those claims belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The court agreed with the district court that only the trustee had standing to prosecute the FCA lawsuit; affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6); and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. View "Westbrook Navigator L.L.C., et al v. Navistar, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that Bayer defrauded the United States government through its marketing and sale of the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of the qui tam action she brought against Bayer Healthcare under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. Based upon the court's review of plaintiff's allegations regarding the Department of Defense (DoD) contracts, the court concluded that her complaint satisfied Rule 9(b)'s requirements and survived a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment with regard to her allegations regarding the DoD contracts and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to the allegations involving federal health insurance reimbursement claims under United States v. ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc.View "Simpson v. Bayer Healthcare, et al." on Justia Law

The pro se plaintiff sued her former employer, a private recipient of federal funding, alleging violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, by requiring her to complete certain duties as a dental assistant that she was incapable of performing due to an unspecified disability that limits her strength and mobility, and then firing her because of her disability. The district judge dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit reversed. A plaintiff under the Rehabilitation Act against a recipient of federal money is not required to exhaust the administrative remedies that the Act provides; an employee or former employee of a private company, such as the plaintiff, is not required Act to even file an administrative charge or complaint.View "Williams v. Milwaukee Health Servs., Inc." on Justia Law