Prime Settles Allegations of Small Businesses Subcontracting Fraud
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.21.18
On June 7, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ), a qui tam relator, and a joint venture of several engineering firms notified Judge Salvador Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington that the parties had reached settlement in United States ex rel. Savage v. Washington Closure Hanford LLC. Defendant Washington Closure Hanford (WCH) agreed to pay $3.2M to settle False Claims Act (FCA) allegations that it used pass-through businesses in order to meet targets for small business subcontracting during WCH’s performance of a multibillion environmental cleanup contract for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site.
Savage is the latest example of a large contractor becoming ensnared in an FCA action alleging small business fraud, and the first application of the “presumption-of-loss rule” in a civil FCA case (previously discussed here). In a 2017 opinion, Judge Mendoza denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and ruled that—under the presumption-of-loss rule—the DOJ could seek as damages the full value of the subcontracts which the government valued at “tens of millions of dollars.” Coupled with the FCA’s relatively low standard for “knowingly” submitting false claims – which can be based not just on actual knowledge but also reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance – the presumption-of-loss rule as applied in Savage significantly raises the stakes for large contractors who may be held liable for teaming with small businesses that lack the size or status they claim.
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
