1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Knowingly False Certification of Davis-Bacon Act Compliance Results in Treble Damages

Knowingly False Certification of Davis-Bacon Act Compliance Results in Treble Damages

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.02.14

In U.S. ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Constr., LLC (Aug. 22, 2014), the district court was tasked with calculating damages after the prime contractor was found liable under the False Claims Act for falsely certifying that its subcontractor for electrical work on construction contract had paid proper wages under the Davis-Bacon Act. The district court held that (1) the proper measure of single damages is the amount the government paid the defendant for electrical work performed by the subcontractor, and not simply the amount of the underpayments to the subcontractor’s workers; (2) because the Army contract did not break out pricing for the electrical work, it is acceptable for the court to rely on an expert witness who estimated the amount paid to the defendant for the electrical work by consulting RS Means, a data compendium of construction costs used to generate construction project estimates; and (3) although not expressly addressed, there is no offset from the trebled damages for the value of the electrical services actually provided to the government.

Contacts

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].”...