1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CAFC Holds Agency Standardization Decision Outside COFC Jurisdiction

CAFC Holds Agency Standardization Decision Outside COFC Jurisdiction

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.31.18

In a January 23 decision, AgustaWestland North America, Inc. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit reversed a COFC decision that had enjoined the U.S. Army from sole source procuring Airbus UH-72A Lakota helicopters to meet the Army’s standardized training helicopter needs.  The CAFC first held that the Army’s “Execution Order” standardizing to the UH-72A was not a procurement decision because it did not discuss procuring helicopters and instead assessed existing Army assets, and therefore the COFC lacked jurisdiction.  The CAFC then rejected the COFC’s conclusion that the Army’s decision to sole source as a “follow-on contract for . . . production of a major system” was flawed because (1) the COFC abused its discretion in supplementing the administrative record; (2) the procurement qualified as a “follow-on” even absent a preceding contract; (3) the J&A was sufficiently supported; and (4) that the CO signed before legal or competition advocate review was not prima facie arbitrary and capricious.

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