1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Separate CAS Noncompliances May Get Separate SOL

Separate CAS Noncompliances May Get Separate SOL

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.22.14

In Appeal of Fluor Corp., the ASBCA held that the government's claim relating to an alleged CAS 403 noncompliance "was a continuing claim inherently susceptible to being broken down into a series of independent distinct events," namely, each payment by the government for a CAS-non-compliant billing. Thus, the board held that, under the CDA's statute of limitations, the government "knew or should have known" that it had a claim against the contractor as of the date the compliance audit was completed (for amounts paid before that date), but that claims for the same alleged CAS noncompliance in subsequent years would not accrue until the amounts at issue for those years had been billed and paid, a result that may save some government claims from the CDA's 6-year SOL (previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here).


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