Another Salvo in the War for Control of Contractor "Systems" Approval
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.20.10
In the "Report on Allegation of Unsatisfactory Conditions Regarding Actions by the Defense Contract Management Agency, Earned Value Management Center" (July 28, 2010 http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy10/apo/D-2010-6-002.pdf), the DoD Inspector General recommended that the Defense Contract Management Agency "prohibit joint surveillance reviews or other joint activities with a contractor" in order to avoid compromising DCMA's "independence" and to take action to increase DCAA "participation" in Earned Value Management Systems audits. While DCMA did not concur in many of the recommendations in the IG report, if the IG recommendations were adopted they would inevitably be applicable to other contractor "systems" issues, make it more difficult for contracting officers to resolve systems issues raised by DCAA, and have a decidedly negative impact on compliance and contract administration activities in the procurement process.
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
