1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Awardee's Reliance on Incumbent Employee Who Had Never Been Contacted Constitutes a Material Misrepresentation of Proposed Staff

Awardee's Reliance on Incumbent Employee Who Had Never Been Contacted Constitutes a Material Misrepresentation of Proposed Staff

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.07.20

In T3I Sols., LLC, GAO sustained a post-award protest challenging an Air Force award for courseware and training services finding that the awardee materially misrepresented its available workforce by proposing an incumbent employee without contacting that employee in advance of proposal submission or obtaining permission to include him as part of the awardee’s proposed team. The agency relied on the awardee’s representations regarding this employee and his qualifications in finding the awardee technically acceptable. GAO rejected the argument that there was no misrepresentation because the solicitation did not require commitment letters or employee representations. GAO further explained that the awardee’s “hope or belief” that it would be able to offer incumbent employees was not sufficient to represent commitment without more. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights