Speak Now Or Forever Hold Your Claims
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.19
The ASBCA in the reconsideration of Parsons Evergreene LLC, ASBCA No. 58634, stated that “the failure to argue alternative theories has consequences” and that it is not “the Board’s obligation to search the record for evidence of quantum to meet PE’s burden of proof.” In the entitlement and quantum decision on the Triarch issue, the Board held that while PE was entitled to recover the cost of applying Sherwin Williams paint, it could not determine the amount owed. In reconsideration, PE pointed the Board to documents in the record that would support a quantum calculation. The Board denied PE’s request stating that it would not grant reconsideration resulting from a new argument based on evidence in the record but not presented in PE’s post-hearing brief. Similarly, the Board denied PE’s request to reconsider its REA preparation claim because PE failed to present an argument or direct the Board to any evidence to support its claim that the REA preparation costs were incurred in furtherance of negotiations.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
