Teddie Arnold and Stephanie Magnell spoke about government contractors protecting themselves from government fraud arguments in the February 25th Federal Publications Seminars Podcast “Avoiding Fraud in Federal Contract Claims.”
When contractors file claims against the government, they should make sure they are on solid ground to protect against government claims of fraud. Listen to the podcast here.
Jeff Hummel authored the “Risk Allocation: Design-Builder and Designer” chapter of the Design-Build, Public-Private Partnerships, and Collaboration Handbook. The comprehensive Handbook covers all aspects of the design-build delivery system, presents its pros and cons, and compares them with the traditional project delivery method. It also offers practical suggestions for effective drafting of design-build contracts, and sets out recent legal developments in various jurisdictions. Lastly, the Handbook addresses the increased use of collaboration among various parties, including through Public-Private Partnerships.
For more information about the Handbook, visit the Wolters Kluwer website.
James Newland is presenting a fourteen-part webinar series for Federal Publications Seminars. This fourteen-part webinar series is a deep dive into construction contracts, claims, and risk management as it presents and analyzes the risks that arise on construction projects, the contract clauses and drafting considerations in allocating those risks, and the claims and disputes methods and procedures used in documenting, presenting, mediating, arbitrating, or litigating the claims when they arise. Along the way, the course presents and analyzes those topics from the perspective of the owner, general contractor and subcontractors operating on public or private construction projects. The topics are presented from both a legal and practical standpoint and the program discusses the substantive and administrative aspects of the key clauses, risks and claims prevalent on public and private construction projects.
See the full list of programs below, and register on the Federal Publications Seminars website. Continue Reading James Newland to Present Construction Contracts, Claims, and Risk Management Webinar Series
Seyfarth’s Construction team is pleased to announce the release of our 2022 edition of the 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide. The Guide provides the general time requirements for filing lien notices in each state, plus Washington, DC. Seyfarth’s Construction team prepared the survey for use by owners, commercial contractors, and real estate developers on non-public projects. Requirements may differ for residential and public projects. You can request a PDF of the 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide below.
The Fourth Circuit, in United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC, No. 20-2330, 2022 WL 211172 (4th Cir. Jan. 25, 2022) recently upheld the dismissal of False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit brought by a quit tam relator (“Relator”) against his employer, Forest Laboratories, LLC (“Forest”) alleging that Forest engaged in a fraudulent price reporting scheme under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute (“Rebate Statute”).[1]
Notably, the Fourth Circuit adopted the US Supreme Court’s decision in Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) in holding that the scienter element of the FCA is subject to an “objective reasonableness” standard, where a defendant can defeat FCA liability by establishing that its interpretation of the applicable statute or regulation was objectively reasonable and that no authoritative guidance from a court or agency could have “warned defendant away” from that interpretation. Just last year, the Seventh Circuit adopted this standard in U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., joining the Third, Eighth, Ninth, and DC Circuits in holding the same.
At issue in Sheldon was the reasonableness of Forest’s interpretation of the Rebate Statute in determining how it calculated certain discounts given to separate customers for purpose of reporting its “best price” to the government. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that Forest’s reading of the Rebate Statute was “objectively reasonable,” there was no authoritative guidance to the contrary, and thus Forest did not act “knowingly” under the FCA. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.[2] Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Adopts Objective Reasonableness Standard in Determining Scienter Element of the False Claims Act
Seyfarth partner Teddie Arnold is moderating the “Enhancing Small Business Ethics and Compliance Efforts” panel for the Defense Industry Initiative’s (DII) first quarter webinar on Thursday, March 24 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern. The program will include a discussion of ethics and compliance risks and opportunities for small and mid-sized businesses, with perspectives from industry, experts, and government. The panel will also discuss effective strategies for small and mid-sized businesses to develop best practice programs, including partnering with larger prime customers.
DII is a non-profit organization formed by many of the top defense companies in the US. Its mission is the continued promotion and advancement of a culture of ethical conduct in every company that provides products and services to the US Armed Forces. Seyfarth partner Donald Featherstun serves as the DII Coordinator.
For more information and to register for the webinar, visit DII’s website. This webinar is free and open to the public.
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that FAR 52.212-4(l), the Termination for Convenience clause used in commercial items contracts, had no effect in a services contract—even though the services contract explicitly incorporated the clause. The case could have significant implications not just for services contracts that borrow commercial-items clauses, but also for contractors evaluating whether new clauses added into their contract (like clauses requiring COVID-19 vaccines) are operative. Continue Reading Federal Circuit Holds Termination for Convenience Clause Inoperative in Services Contract
After reporting its lowest annual recovery from False Claim Act (“FCA”) cases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has reportedly bounced back. On February 1, 2021, DOJ released detailed statistics regarding FCA recoveries during FY 2021, during which DOJ reportedly obtained more than $5.6 billion in civil FCA settlements and judgments, of which $5 billion related to matters involving the health care industry. This follows what had been a significant decline from the high water mark in 2014 when DOJ recovered a record $5.69 billion, after which the number of dollars recovered had generally trended downward—2015 ($3.5 billion), 2016 ($4.93 billion), 2017 ($3.47 billion), 2018 ($2.9 billion), 2019 ($3 billion), and 2020 ($2.2 billion). DOJ reported recoveries in the form of settlements and judgments across various sectors including health care fraud, procurement fraud, COVID-related fraud, as well as a slew of other fraud including those involving oil and natural gas exploration, the FCC’s E-Rate program, federal funding for tutoring services, and FHA loan underwriting deficiencies. In addition, DOJ touted its cybersecurity initiatives, as well as its continued commitment to hold individuals accountable under the FCA.
Continue Reading DOJ Reports False Claims Act Recoveries for Fiscal Year 2021
IssueThe cost and time to perform change order work may increase as a result of COVID-19 impacts that arise after the change order is agreed upon. The Contractor can include contingencies for that risk in its lump sum pricing, but the Owner will have paid an unnecessary premium if those impacts do not materialize.
Consider utilizing a COVID-19 Rider with your change orders. The Rider details the types of COVID-19 impacts that entitle the Contractor to relief, as well as the specific relief. This allows the parties to use their standard process and format for change orders, with the COVID-19 issues addressed in the Rider. A one-page Rider is often all you need. The primary issues to address in the Rider are discussed below. Continue Reading COVID-19 Riders for Construction Change Orders
In heavy-civil, excavation, and infrastructure work, the risk of encountering differing, unknown, or concealed conditions is significant, as it is nearly impossible to document or predict everything that the contractor will encounter below the surface when performing its operations. Although standard pre-bid site surveys, including soil and geotechnical reports, are good resources to evaluate potential concerns, they will almost never be all encompassing as to what a contractor will face when its work is in progress. Given these unique, complicated, and costly risks, some project owners will seek to pass liability for such risk onto the those performing the work. Indeed, owners may seek to transfer these unknown risks, including unforeseen conditions, to contractors making the financial burden significant for those bidding the work. Accordingly, it is imperative that the contractor balance the desire to submit a competitive price to win the work with the need to ensure that it has some type of remedy or recovery should it encounter such concealed or differing conditions. Faced with this balancing act, contractors performing excavation and foundation work should be intimately familiar with the site disclaimer, exculpatory, and risk-transferring clauses present in their agreements and the effect that such provisions may have on their ability to recover additional costs and time should they encounter differing conditions. Continue Reading Construction Site Disclaimers: Navigating Risk Allocation for Differing, Concealed and Unknown Conditions in Heavy-Civil, Excavation, and Infrastructure Work