1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fourth Circuit Interprets Corporate Knowledge And Materiality Under FCA

Fourth Circuit Interprets Corporate Knowledge And Materiality Under FCA

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.08.04

In United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. (Dec. 19, 2003), the Fourth Circuit upheld a civil penalty of $195,000 ($7500 times 26 invoices) because the false cert "negatively affected the integrity of the bidding process," although zero actual damages were proven. The court held that (a) the False Claims Act's "knowledge" element was satisfied when one employee of the corporate defendant had knowledge of the facts making the corporation's certification false, even though there was no evidence that the same employee knew that the cert was required or even that it had been submitted; and (b) the false cert (that no organizational conflict of interest (OCI) existed in connection with a subcontract award) was "material" because it would have "had a natural tendency to influence" the government's decision to fund the subcontract "if it had known the full details" at the time of award, even though the government in fact concluded that no OCI existed when it subsequently learned of the issue and continued to pay for the subcontract work thereafter.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Tried to Fix PIA Violation with a Second PIA Violation

Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”...