1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Government Charged With Knowledge of Unapproved Subcontractors Listed on Invoices

Government Charged With Knowledge of Unapproved Subcontractors Listed on Invoices

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.02.19

In URS Federal Services, Inc. (Sept. 3, 2019), the ASBCA found on summary judgment that the government’s 2017 claim to recover $698,685 in allegedly unallowable direct subcontractor costs was time-barred by the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations because the claim accrued in 2006, when the government paid URS’s invoices that included those costs. In arguing that it could only have “known” about the basis of its claim in 2012 when URS resubmitted its final indirect cost rate proposal for FY 2006, the government alleged that URS: (1) failed to receive contractual approval to subcontract, and (2) lacked adequate documentation (now) demonstrating that the costs at issue were incurred and allocable to the contract. Regarding the first basis, the Board found that the invoices listing the allegedly unapproved subcontractors demonstrated the government had knowledge that URS was using them when the government paid the invoices. The Board declined to grant summary judgment on the documentation issue. 

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