Contractor Claims Forfeited Under Fraud Statutes
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.06.14
The Federal Circuit in Veridyne Corp. (July 15, 2014) held that a contractor whose claims for payment were forfeited under the Special Plea in Fraud Statute (applicable when the contractor "knew that its submitted claims were false and . . . intended to defraud the government by submitting [its] claims") was not entitled to recovery even in quantum meruit for the value of work completed and accepted by the government. At the same time, the Federal Circuit upheld the imposition of False Claims Act penalties for each invoice submitted under a contract extension because the contractor's misleading proposal caused the extension to be "infected with fraud," and it upheld additional, CDA penalties for invoices found to be "unsupported."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
