1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Don’t Sleep on Discovery, It Could Yield Basis for New Claim

Don’t Sleep on Discovery, It Could Yield Basis for New Claim

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.04.19

In Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., CBCA 5168, 6298 (Feb. 29, 2019), the CBCA denied the government’s motion for partial dismissal, which alleged that Amec’s superior knowledge and negligent estimate claims were either “barred by the statute of limitations or insufficiently plead.” Amec alleged that it first learned the basis for its claims during discovery in appeal CBCA 5168, and it could not have known the basis for them before then. The government argued that Amec should have known of those grounds shortly after award when Amec realized the “quantities and descriptions in the contract were radically incorrect.” The Board rejected the government’s position that the “contractor should consider asserting every conceivable legal theory of relief as soon as it encounters an unforeseen condition.” The Board also disagreed with the government that it was clear that the contract specifications were not misleading and thus Amec’s claims were insufficiently plead. The Board noted that there were a “myriad” of technical issues and that although the government’s “factual defense may prevail at the hearing,” it was inappropriate for the Board to decide it on a motion for partial dismissal. 

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