Amy M. Kirby is an Associate in the Federal Construction Group and focuses her practice on government construction litigation. Amy’s practice includes a wide variety of federal construction matters. She provides support to clients during all stages of contract management from assisting with the preparation of contract proposals through negotiating final contract close-out and beyond. Specifically, Amy assists clients with preparation of proposals and bids, as well as representing their interests related to pre and post award bid protests.

On March 9th, 2016, join Maria Panichelli and Amy Kirby for their two seminars, “The Fundamentals of the Far Part 1, 2 and 3,” and “Debriefings, Bid Protests and Size Status Eligibility,”as part of the Procurement Technical Assistance Center of Delaware‘s (PTAC) two part seminar event, Two Seminars on the Same Day, One Price.

For more information on these seminars, please click here.

Continue Reading Procurement Technical Assistance Center of Delaware: Two Seminars on the Same Day

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) issues statistics each year regarding the outcome of bid protests.  In 2015, there were 2,639 cases filed and there we 587 decisions on the merits.  Of those, only 68 protests were sustained.  According to the way the GAO presents its statistics, that would indicate that protestors prevailed approximately 12% of the time.  In reality, since many protests were withdrawn or summarily dismissed, the protesters only prevailed in 68 of the 2,639 protests filed and the true success rate was closer to 3%.  With those odds, why would anyone file a GAO bid protest?  The answer requires a little closer scrutiny since statistics can be misleading.

Continue Reading Deciding Whether to File a GAO Bid Protest

In December 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an important decision that impacts how the 6 year statute of limitations (SOL) is applied under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).  In Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation v. United States, the Court of Appeals determined that the CDA’s 6 year SOL for filing a claim is not jurisdictional, contrary to  number of lower court opinions.  This ruling has a number of important consequences that Federal Government contractors should understand.

claims handwritten with chalk on a blackboard

The CDA states that, “each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government…and each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor…shall be submitted within 6 years after the accrual of the claim.”  Prior to Sikorsky, this requirement was considered by most to be jurisdictional.  This meant that the 6 year time limit was absolute and, even in extenuating circumstances, could not be missed.  Therefore, any claim brought beyond 6 years simply could not be considered by the court.  The court would not have the jurisdiction.

While the decision in Sikorsky did not eliminate the CDA’s 6 year SOL, it does open the door to “equitable tolling” an important exception in applying a limitations period.  Equitable tolling is a legal concept that, in certain circumstances, allows contractors to bring claims after the time allowed by an applicable SOL.  Specifically related to the 6 year SOL under the CDA, a claim can be equitably tolled if a claimant diligently pursues its rights to bring that claim but extraordinary circumstances stood in its way.  For example, in Sikorsky the activities that brought about that claim began in 1999 but did not become material until 2003.  The claim was eventually brought in 2008 and a dispute ensued regarding whether the claim was timely filed.  The claimant, in this case the Government, argued that because the claim was not material until 2003 the SOL did not start to run until then and, therefore, when the claim was filed with the court in 2008, it was brought within the 6 year SOL.  Sikorsky, on the other hand, argued that the claim accrued in 1999 and was, therefore, barred by the 6 year SOL because it was not brought until 2008.  Ultimately, the court did not decide whether the claim was timely filed because it found that the appellant failed to meet its burden in proving the merits of the claim.  In the process of discussing that issue, however, the court made the important determination that the 6 year SOL was not jurisdictional.

In addition to opening the door for equitable tolling, Sikorsky will also change how SOL issues are litigated under the CDA.  Prior to this decision, because the CDA’s 6 year SOL was largely considered jurisdictional, any challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction had to be decided if and when it was raised.  The issue could not be waived and could come up at any time.  After review, if it was found that the court did not have jurisdiction, the matter would be dismissed because jurisdiction is a prerequisite for the court to decide a matter on the merits.  Based upon Sikorsky, things have changed.  First, a defendant must now raise SOL as an affirmative defense.  An affirmative defense must typically be plead at the first opportunity possible (usually in the Answer to a Complaint) or it is waived.  Second, a non-jurisdictional challenge to the SOL is normally decided when a court renders a decision on the merits.  For contractors doing business with the Federal Government this has an important practical effect.  If a contractor brings a claim against the Federal Government and also argues that equitable tolling should apply, post-Sikorsky a judge or jury will likely decide whether equitable tolling has taken place after all of the evidence on the facts have been heard.  This means that a claimant may have to litigate its entire claim before the court will even determine if the claim was raised within the 6 year SOL.

As a practical matter, if you have a claim, or a potential claim, do not sit on your rights.  While Sikorsky is helpful and important in terms of how the SOL is considered under the CDA, do not take any chances.  6 years represents a very generous limitations period.  Seek professional assistance as early as possible and get the claim submitted.  If you have any questions, please let us know.

Edward T. DeLisle is Co-Chair of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Ed frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters including bid protests, claims and appeals, procurement issues, small business issues and dispute resolution.

Amy M. Kirby is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Contracting Practice Group and focuses her practice on government construction litigation. Amy’s practice includes a wide variety of federal construction matters.

On January 8, 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Triple Canopy, which broadened the reach of the False Claims Act (FCA) by embracing the theory of implied certification. While it is too early to speculate about the impact of the decision, it certainly could result in a rise in whistle blower and government initiated actions under the FCA.

Money Exchange

The case stems from a security services contract at Al Asad Airbase in Iraq, which was awarded to Triple Canopy in 2009. As a part of the contract, Triple Canopy was required to provide security personnel who possessed specific firearms training and who were able to pass a U.S. Army qualifications course with a minimum score. Scorecards indicating that personnel passed the qualifications course were to be maintained in each employee’s personnel file.

Triple Canopy hired 332 Ugandan guards to work at the Airbase. The guards’ personnel files indicated that they met the training requirements; however, once they arrived on site and were retested, it was discovered that they were unable to properly perform. To overcome this, Triple Canopy falsified scorecard sheets indicating that its personnel were, in fact, qualified.

For the 12 month contract period Triple Canopy presented monthly invoices to the government and received payments totaling over 4 million dollars. Sometime later, a former employee filed a qui tam action in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that the FCA had been violated. The government intervened alleging that Triple Canopy knowingly presented false claims to the government. Specifically, the government alleged “that Triple Canopy knew the guards did not satisfy [the contract’s] marksmanship requirement but nonetheless billed the government the full price for each and every one of its unqualified guards and falsified documents in its files to show that the unqualified guards each qualified as a Marksman on the U.S. Army Qualification course.”

Triple Canopy filed a motion to dismiss. The basis for this motion was the government’s failure to sufficiently plead that Triple Canopy submitted a demand for payment that contained a false statement. The motion went on to state that the government failed to prove that a false record was created by Triple Canopy, which the government relied upon in paying Triple Canopy. The Court agreed. In its opinion, the Court asserted that the government did not plead “that Triple Canopy submitted a demand for payment that contained an objectively false statement.” In other words, because the actual claim for payment did not contain a false statement, there was no violation of the FCA. Further, the Court held that the “Government … failed to allege that the [Contracting Officer’s Representative] ever reviewed the scorecards,” demonstrating that the government did not rely upon a false record because it did not examine the scorecards before it made payment. The United States (along with the former employee) appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

On appeal the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling. The Court held that the “Government pleads a false statement when it alleges that the contractor, with the requisite scienter, made a request for payment under a contract and withheld information about its noncompliance with material contractual requirements. The pertinent inquiry is whether, through the act of submitting a claim, a payee knowingly and falsely implied that it was entitled to payment.” The Fourth Circuit further found that, although Triple Canopy had not submitted certifications that were false on their face, the government plead sufficient evidence to sustain a FCA claim under a theory of implied certification.

In making this finding, the Court acknowledged the broad purpose of the FCA by stating that “claims can be false when a party impliedly certifies compliance with a material contractual condition [which] gives effect to Congress’ expressly stated purpose that the FCA should reach all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money or to deliver property or service.” Here, the material contractual condition was the guards’ qualifications, which Triple Canopy falsified. As the Court explained “common sense strongly suggests that the government’s decision to pay a contractor for providing base security in an active combat zone would be influenced by knowledge that the guards could not, for lack of a better term, shoot straight….[and further] if Triple Canopy believed that the marksmanship requirement was immaterial to the government’s decision to pay, it was unlikely to orchestrate a scheme to falsify records on multiple occasions.” Essentially, the Fourth Circuit found that the claim itself did not have to be false as long as the underlying information that formed the basis of the claim was material and false.

Prior to this ruling, it was difficult to bring a claim under the FCA under circumstances such as these because it was generally only permissible where there was fraud found in an actual certification for payment. Based upon this decision, a FCA claim can be sustained as long as the material upon which payment is based is false. This is yet another example of the expansive nature of the FCA. If you are a government contractor beware of its implications and if you have any questions, call a legal professional.

Edward T. DeLisle is Co-Chair of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Ed frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters including bid protests, claims and appeals, procurement issues, small business issues and dispute resolution.

Amy M. Kirby is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Contracting Practice Group and focuses her practice on government construction litigation. Amy’s practice includes a wide variety of federal construction matters.

On November 25th, the DOD, GSA and NASA issued a final rule incorporating a new clause into the FAR regarding accelerated payments to small business subcontractors on Government projects. The new rule, which takes effect December 26, 2013, requires large business prime contractors receiving accelerated payments from the Government to, in turn, accelerate payments to all of their small business subcontractors. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that small business subcontractors are paid as promptly as possible.

The clause will be inserted into all new solicitations and resulting contracts issued after the effective date, including those contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. Unfortunately, the rule does not create any new remedies, where accelerated payments must be issued and they are not. Under such circumstances, the Government can discontinue accelerated payment to the prime contractor, but nothing more.

One interesting aspect of the new rule is that large business prime contractors cannot prevent their small business subcontractors from speaking to the contracting officer about the status of payment. Subcontract Agreements often state the exact opposite. Prime contractors typically do not want their subcontractors asking the contracting officers questions of any kind, let alone questions regarding payment. While this is certainly understandable, by virtue of the new rule, large business prime contractors will not have the same legal support for their position.

There’s not a lot to sink your teeth into here. However, the fact that small business subcontractors can go right to the contracting officer about payment issues without fear of legal retribution is at least something. If you have any questions about this, or other, aspects of the new rule, please contact us. The information contained above was reported yesterday by Law360.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

Amy Kirby is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.