1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A Rose and a Thorn: Federal Circuit Permits Contractor to Add New Claim to Pending Complaint, but Enforces Notice Provision to Bar Recovery

A Rose and a Thorn: Federal Circuit Permits Contractor to Add New Claim to Pending Complaint, but Enforces Notice Provision to Bar Recovery

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.15

In K-Con Building Systems Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that a contractor could amend its COFC complaint to add new, denied claims related to the appeal if the new claims either requested different remedies (e.g., additional compensation, remission of funds, non-monetary relief) or asserted legal grounds for relief that were materially different from the claims under appeal. This holding may prove helpful to contractors at the COFC who identify additional bases for recovery/remedies after filing their complaint; however, the Court also denied recovery because the contractor's two-year delay before notifying the government of the alleged "changes" failed to provide the adequate notice required by the Changes Clause, distinguishing the facts in K-Con from those in prior cases where notice provisions were not strictly enforced.

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