GSA "Invites" Schedule Contractors To Examine Origin Of Offered Products
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.15.06
On February 10, 2006, DOJ announced a $5.02 million settlement with Corporate Express, bringing to $28+ million the total obtained from defendants in U.S. ex rel Safini Office Products v. Office Depot et al . (D.D.C. No. 03-CV-003), a qui tam case involving allegations that the defendants had sold office products from non-designated countries on the GSA Schedule in violation of the Trade Agreements Act certification in the contracts. Also within the past week, in a development showing that all schedule contractors should be aware that TAA compliance has a become a major issue in GSA audits, GSA schedule contractors for office products began receiving a letter from GSA asking them to perform a self-assessment of the products they offered and to remove those items from countries that are not "designated countries" under the Trade Agreements Act, countries that would include such major sources of office and Information Technology products as China, India, Taiwan and Malaysia.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
