Court Applies Totten Reasoning To Subcontractor Liability Under FCA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.23.05
Applying the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004), regarding lack of False Claims Act (FCA) liability for claims made by contractors of federal grantees when those claims are not presented to the Government for payment [see Crowell & Moring Bullet Points 9/16/2004 and 12/16/04), the Southern District of Ohio in U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. Allison Engine Co. (Mar. 11, 2005) dismissed a qui tam case for failure to present evidence that the defendant subcontractor's claims had been presented to the government for payment. In so doing, the court distinguished longstanding Supreme Court precedent imposing subcontractor liability when the prime passes the sub's false claim up to the government.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
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].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
