1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |All's Not Fair in FCA Wars

All's Not Fair in FCA Wars

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.28.13

In U.S. ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2013), the district court disqualified relators' counsel for using privileged materials taken by the relators when they left the employ of the defendant to craft their claims and pleadings. The court found that (1) the relators' counsel were put on notice by the government of the potentially privileged nature of the documents and had an obligation to take reasonable remedial actions before using the materials; (2) the use of the privileged materials to craft claims was alone sufficient to show a risk of prejudice; (3) no showing of bad faith is required for disqualification, but the fact that relators' counsel decided to quote the documents in pleadings without seeking guidance from the court was "tantamount to bad faith;" and (4) even if defendant provided final copies of the materials that were almost identical to the privileged draft versions, as relators' counsel claimed, that did not excuse their obligation to take reasonable remedial actions regarding the privileged versions.

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].”...