1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Material Misrepresentation Dooms Contract From the Get-Go

Material Misrepresentation Dooms Contract From the Get-Go

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.07.19

In ABS Dev. Corp. (January 7, 2019), the ASBCA found a contract void ab initio because the contractor’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation about staffing. Although failure to perform in accordance with an incorporated proposal is generally only a breach, the Board noted that where a contractor obtains a contract through a material misrepresentation––with no intention of performing in accordance with the representation––the contract is void ab initio. Here, the Board found ABS’ contract void ab initio because: (1) ABS, to address contracting officer concerns regarding staffing approach in its proposal, represented that it would directly hire personnel to perform on-site work; (2) ABS did not have any intention to adhere to such representation; and (3) had ABS not made such representation, the contracting officer would not have awarded ABS the contract. Because no valid contract ever existed, ABS’ claim for additional compensation was denied and the Government's assessment of liquidated damages was likewise denied.

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