1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Contracts Mean What They Say: Contractor Entitled to Invoice for Total Hours Worked under Labor Hours Contracts

Contracts Mean What They Say: Contractor Entitled to Invoice for Total Hours Worked under Labor Hours Contracts

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.30.12

In GaN Corp. (July 13, 2012), the government argued that the Payments Under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts clause permitted the contractor to bill on the labor-hour task orders at issue only those hours for which salaried exempt employees had been "paid" by the contractor, not for so-called "uncompensated overtime" hours worked by those salaried employees. It is not clear from the decision how the government proposed to determine the number of hours for which the salaried employees were not "paid," but what is clear is that the Board rejected the argument and held that under the plain meaning of the clause the contractor was entitled to invoice for the total number of hours actually worked by each employee at the hourly rate specified in the contract for that employee, regardless of the amount paid to the employee.

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