1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Satellite-Sensor FCA Suit Comes Crashing Down to Earth

Satellite-Sensor FCA Suit Comes Crashing Down to Earth

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.09.17

On August 3, 2017 in United States ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co, a district judge in the Central District of California dismissed a $1 billion False Claims Act (FCA) suit brought by a former Raytheon engineer who alleged that the company overbilled the government and failed to meet product specifications on a contract for satellite sensors. Although Relator had amended his complaint five times, the Fifth Amended Complaint still failed to identify a single specific false representation that Raytheon made to the government. Moreover, the complaint contained only one sentence addressing the materiality of Raytheon’s alleged nonconformity with contract specifications. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States ex rel. Escobar on the implied certification theory of liability, the district court found that relator’s barebones allegations of nonconforming deliveries failed to meet the FCA’s demanding materiality standard and the heightened pleading requirements of 9(b) which were unlikely to be cured by granting further leave to amend.

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].”...