1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Dismisses Adverse Past Performance Challenge

CFC Dismisses Adverse Past Performance Challenge

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.29.10

In Kemron Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (May 27, 2010), the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the contractor's complaint that the government issued an unfair, inaccurate, and unreasonable evaluation of its performance, finding that the contractor had failed to meet a jurisdictional prerequisite required by the Contract Disputes Act: that it file a "claim" with the contracting officer. Though the contractor engaged in a series of written and electronic communications with various individuals at the agency expressing its disagreement with its past performance evaluation, the Court concluded that none of the communications constituted (1) "a written demand seeking . . . other contract relief[] . . . as a matter of right" (2) "submitted to the contracting officer for a decision."

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