1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Negative Responsibility Determination Overturned

Negative Responsibility Determination Overturned

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.02.10

In Bilfinger Berger AG v. U.S. (Nov. 19, 2010), the CFC found that the Army Corps of Engineers had unreasonably relied on the opinion of an Italian lawyer applying Italian law to disqualify an offeror for when the Corps had failed to describe all the relevant situation to the attorney and issued a preliminary injunction stopping all work under the contract. The case is another example of the little deference that the CFC gives GAO opinions, as the GAO had found in the Corps' favor on the same facts, and Judge Sweeney also joins those on the court who have ruled that the jurisdiction under 1491(a)(1) of the court to consider a breach of the implied-in-fact contract to consider a solicitation fairly and consistently with the solicitation is intact after the addition of bid protest jurisdiction in 1491(b)(1) and the Federal Circuit's decision in Resource Conservation Group earlier this year.

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