DAM Contractor's Underbidding Insufficient For FCA Liability
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.21.05
Affirming summary judgment, the D.C. Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Bettis v. Oderbrecht Contractors (Jan. 11, 2005) held that evidence that a dam contractor (1) underbid, (2) reaffirmed its underbid, and (3) claimed that it would use cost-saving measures it never employed did not permit the conclusion that the contractor fraudulently induced the Army Corps of Engineers to award it the contract. The Court acknowledged that claims submitted for payment under a contract that was fraudulently induced can give rise to civil False Claims Act liability, but found in this case that the contractor's underbid was not a promise that its estimated costs were accurate, only that it would perform the dam work at the unit prices it bid, such that submission of claims for payment under the contract, including claims for equitable adjustments above the contract price, were not false claims.
Insights
Client Alert | 9 min read | 10.21.26
The life sciences sector is uniquely vulnerable to the inherent risks of AI-generated evidence in drug development and discovery. This client alert focuses on five core challenges: hallucinations, skewed predictions from unrepresentative training data, the opacity of AI reasoning, input sensitivity that undermines reproducibility, and adversarial manipulation of training data. To address these risks, companies should use experimental validation and human oversight as the common legal and regulatory safety net. This entails among other measures auditing AI outputs, characterizing training data, and structural oversight. Companies also should prepare for evolving frameworks and guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union (EU) that address use of AI in drug discovery and development .
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.21.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.21.26
Private Investigations Act Series: Temporal, material and territorial scope
Client Alert | 7 min read | 10.21.26
