1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DOJ Memo Limits the Use of Agency Guidance in FCA Enforcement

DOJ Memo Limits the Use of Agency Guidance in FCA Enforcement

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.22.18

A recent memorandum issued by Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (Brand Memo) prevents Department of Justice (DOJ) civil litigators from relying on agency guidance documents to demonstrate violations of the False Claims Act (FCA).  Specifically, the Brand Memo prohibits using noncompliance with agency guidance documents to presumptively or conclusively establish violation of the underlying law or regulation.  The Brand Memo references an earlier memorandum issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Sessions Memo) that prohibits DOJ agencies from creating binding standards in guidance documents without engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking.  The Brand Memo reiterates the core premise of the Sessions Memo – that guidance documents cannot create legal obligations.  It also expands on the Sessions Memo by directing DOJ litigators to apply that premise when interpreting other agencies’ guidance documents in civil enforcement actions.  While DOJ litigators may continue using agency guidance for “proper purposes,” such as to establish that a party had the requisite knowledge of a legal mandate because the party was familiar with a guidance document that explained it, this new policy represents a distinct limitation on the use of agency guidance in FCA enforcement.    

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26

ASBCA Denies Government Motion to Dismiss, Providing Key Guidance on Contractor Claim Standards Post-ECC International

In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer. ...