Category: Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Steven J. Roman, and Philip E. Beshara

This is the scenario: you are an executive or manager at a government contractor. It’s Friday morning. You are hoping to leave early and get a jump on the weekend. Then, the receptionist buzzes you and says, “There are men and women out here wearing FBI windbreakers and they want to execute a search warrant.” You wonder, “Can I tell the agents they cannot come in?” Your company does not have in-house counsel. You can call your attorney, but his or her office is across town and the FBI agents say they are not going to wait. “What should I do?”

This may sound like an unlikely scenario, but such government investigations happen all of the time around the country and are rarely expected. In recent years, prosecutors and agents from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Inspector General Offices have brought charges of procurement fraud and corruption against over 100 defendants, including officers and employees of companies of all sizes. In September 2014, DOJ’s Criminal Division announced that it would be “stepping up” its investigation and prosecution of criminal violations of the False Claims Act, using a team of senior federal prosecutors dedicated exclusively to procurement fraud. DOJ’s announcement cited the use of search warrants as one of the significant investigative tools at prosecutors’ disposal. In addition to their increased exposure to law enforcement authorities, small businesses should expect greater scrutiny of their contracting dollars, an initiative that has received bipartisan support in Congress. In March, the House Small Business Committee approved a measure calling for a sweeping examination into abuses in small business contracting, and the Small Business Administration recently proposed a rule for harsher penalties relating to small business subcontracting limitations. Continue reading “Responding to a Warrant—What to Do if Your Company Is Subject to a Fraud Investigation”

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Daniel A. Broderick, and Philip E. Beshara

On January 29, 2015, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration published a final rule, effective March 2, 2015, implementing extensive new prohibitions and compliance requirements to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The changes, mandated by President Obama’s December 2012 Executive Order (E.O. 13627) and the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, raise across-the-board compliance concerns for government contractors—especially those that regularly employ foreign nationals.

New Restrictions and Requirements

The rule, amending FAR Subpart 22.17 and Contract Clause 52.222-50, will prohibit contractors and subcontractors from denying employees identity or immigration documents; using misleading or fraudulent recruitment practices; charging employees recruitment fees; using recruiters that do not comply with local labor laws of the country recruited from; and providing or arranging housing that fails to meet the host country’s housing and safety standards. The regulations also generally require contractors and subcontractors to pay for or provide transportation of foreign workers back to their home country at the end of their employment if they were brought to the work-country for the purpose of working on a U.S. Government contract or subcontract; or if the work-country is the U.S., they are not a U.S. national, and transportation is required under existing temporary worker programs or pursuant to a written agreement with the employee.

If required by law or under the contract, contractors and subcontractors must provide a written work document to employees in a language the employee understands. The rule further requires that the document contain, at minimum, details about work description, wages, the prohibition on recruitment fees, work location(s), living accommodations and associated costs, time off, round-trip transportation arrangements, grievance process, and the content of applicable trafficking laws and regulations. Continue reading “New Anti-Trafficking Regulations Finalized for Government Contractors”

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Christian N. Curran

As the holiday season approaches, companies may consider giving gifts to their government customers. But companies should be aware of the legal limits imposed on gift giving, which could result in serious penalties if ignored. Generally, federal government employees may not solicit or accept gifts or any other thing of value from prohibited sources. See generally, 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. A prohibited source is defined as a person or company seeking official action by, doing business with, or seeking to do business with the employee’s agency, or a person or company regulated by the employee’s agency or that has interests that may be substantially affected by the employee’s official duties.

There are exclusions under the definition of “gift” that allow for some leeway in giving. Snacks or light refreshments (e.g., coffee and doughnuts at a seminar, but not as part of a meal) are excluded from the definition of gift. Items of little intrinsic value such as greeting cards are also excluded. Further, anything that a government employee pays “market value” for is not considered a gift. Market value can have varying meanings, but generally is considered face value, what the contractor paid for it, or the open market equivalent, depending on the item. Continue reading “Guidelines for Contractors Considering Giving Gifts to Government Customers”

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

So your company has been diligently trying to comply with state and federal government contracting regulations. You pay your service employees in accordance with the Service Contract Act, you file your EEO-1s and VETS 100s, you monitor state campaign contributions, and you follow all of the additional requirements in your compliance plan. You think your company is “golden.” Right? Maybe. Are you “offshoring” services under your contract, or the data related to your state and/or Medicaid government contracts? This easily overlooked issue has been percolating to the top of the list for government agencies, state attorneys general, and perhaps, qui tam plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Offshoring, or “the import from abroad of goods or services that were previously produced domestically,”[1] is a major part of today’s business landscape, and government contracting at both federal and state levels is no exception. The issue of offshore outsourcing of services first drew attention in the world of government contracts in 2004, when the media reported that call centers in India were answering customer service calls from Food Stamp recipients.[2] The controversy faded from the public spotlight, but in response to public outcry some states passed legislation or issued executive orders prohibiting or limiting the practice.

A recent (April 11, 2014) report[3] from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) resurfaced the issue of offshoring restrictions in the context of Medicaid contracts. The report reminded contractors that offshoring prohibitions and limitations remain in full force today, and government contractors need to be aware of them. Government contractors must review each individual state contract to ensure compliance with any offshore outsourcing prohibition or restriction. Running afoul of an offshore outsourcing prohibition could have serious consequences. Noncompliance could expose a contractor to suspension, debarment, or even liability under the state’s version of the False Claims Act under the theory that the contractor implicitly certified compliance with a material term of the contract.[4] Continue reading “Does Your State Contract Prohibit Offshore Outsourcing?”

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Over the last decade, False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation has exploded, and actions asserting new theories of liability are resulting in increasingly large recoveries. Last year the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had recovered $3.8 billion under the federal FCA in FY 2013. From all appearances FY 2014 promises to be another “banner year for civil fraud recoveries,” and the DOJ has already put up impressive numbers, particularly against pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including a massive $2.2 billion settlement with Johnson & Johnson, as well as settlements with Endo Health Solutions Inc. ($192.7 million), Halifax Hospital Medical Center ($85 million), and Amedisys, Inc. ($150 million).

While the DOJ continues to vigorously pursue FCA cases against companies in the health care and other sectors, cash-strapped states are now following suit. State Attorneys General (AGs) have increasingly pursued novel and creative FCA actions, as have private plaintiffs, who are authorized by qui tam provisions to stand in the shoes of states to sue and receive part of any recovery. A driver of this action was the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005, which authorized states to receive, in addition to their own recoveries, 10 percent of the federal government’s share of recovered Medicaid funds if their FCAs are at least as robust as the federal FCA. As a result, since 2005 nearly a dozen states have either enacted false claims statutes or have amended existing statutes to make them equally or more robust than the federal FCA, including incorporating qui tam provisions and broadening the circumstances under which companies can be found liable for violations.

For example, late last year, in response to the DRA, New York state amended its FCA (New York State Finance Law § 187, et seq. (NY FCA)), to bring its false claims law more in line with the federal FCA. The New York statute now includes a “reverse false claims” provision that imposes liability as broadly as the federal FCA, providing that a person may be held liable for violating the NY FCA if that person “[k]nowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or a local government, or conspires to do the same….” (NY FCA § 189(1)(h)). The New York amendments also allow the state, as intervenor in a qui tam case, to relate back to the qui tam plaintiff’s filing date for statute of limitations purposes, expanding the period for which the state can seek recoveries. In addition, the law provides attorneys’ fees for successful qui tam plaintiffs, incentivizing the plaintiff’s bar to partner with the state or pursue their own cases under the NY FCA. Continue reading “State False Claims Act Enforcement Explodes in 2014”

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Deborah P. Kelly

In the past two months, three important changes took place that will affect the federal workplace. First, in early February, President Obama signed an Executive Order raising the minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10. On the heels of that Executive Order, in March, the President signed a memorandum directing the Department of Labor (“DOL”) to “propose revisions to modernize and streamline” the existing Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime regulations. Finally, three days ago, the DOL’s new federal contract affirmative action regulations took effect—a development we first analyzed in this alert. Below, we summarize these three events and how each could affect your federal contracting business.

I.     Obama’s Executive Order Regarding Federal Contractor’s Minimum Wage

With the March Executive Order, President Obama raised the minimum wage for federal contractors. How will this new Executive Order affect your federal contracts? Below, we highlight the critical questions and answers regarding the scope and substance of this new Executive Order. Continue reading “Recent Changes to Federal Employment Regulations”

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

False Claims Act (FCA) suits against health care providers have dramatically risen during the last three years. However, recent decisions indicate that courts are becoming increasingly skeptical of suits which allege that technical violations of Medicare regulations are actionable FCA violations. The most recent decision indicating such increasing skepticism was issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals last week in U.S. ex rel. Ketroser v. Mayo Foundation, 2013 WL 4733986, No. 12-3206 (8th Cir. Sept. 4, 2013). In that case, relators brought a qui tam action under the FCA against the Mayo Clinic and several related entities (Mayo). Relators asserted that Mayo falsely billed Medicare for surgical pathology services when it did not submit written reports for each surgical pathology service billed, which was allegedly required by Medicare regulations. The Eighth Circuit found that the regulations at issue did not require such written reports. However, the Eighth Circuit also signaled that even if Mayo was noncompliant with Medicare’s rules and requirements, the relators had not established the “scienter” necessary to show that Mayo “knowingly” submitted false or fraudulent claims for Medicare payment in violation of the FCA. The court concluded that because Mayo’s interpretation of the applicable requirements was at least reasonable, it did not violate the FCA even if it did make a technical mistake under the rules, because it did not act “with the knowledge that the FCA requires before liability can attach…” Continue reading “Courts Are Increasingly Skeptical of FCA Suits Alleging Technical Violations of Medicare Regulations”