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 | 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