Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Government Dismissal Authority under the FCA

Sara N. Gerber

The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc. widens the Circuit split on the standard of review applicable when the government seeks to dismiss a qui tam case under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A), provides that the government may dismiss a qui tam case without the relator’s consent if the relator is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Although the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has increasingly exercised its dismissal authority since issuance of the “Granston Memo” in January 2018—which encouraged DOJ attorneys to consider seeking dismissal if in the best interests of the government—as the Seventh Circuit noted, the FCA does not indicate “how, if at all,” courts are “to review the government’s decision to dismiss.” Circuit Courts have taken divergent views in answering that question.

Circuit Court Decisions

The D.C. Circuit, in Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003), decided that the government has an “unfettered right” to dismiss based on the Executive branch’s “historical prerogative” to decline to prosecute a case. The Ninth Circuit, in U.S. ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Tenth Circuit in Ridenour v. KaiserHill Co., LLC, 397 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2005), imposed a rational-relation test: the government must establish a rational relation between dismissal and the accomplishment of a valid government purpose. If the government satisfies this test, the burden shifts to relator to show that dismissal is fraudulent, arbitrary and capricious, or illegal. So far, the Supreme Court has declined to step in, denying certiorari in April 2020 in United States ex rel. Schneider v. JP Morgan Chase Bank on the question of whether the government’s dismissal decisions constitute an “unreviewable exercise of prosecutorial authority.” Now, however, the Seventh Circuit has articulated a new standard, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governing voluntary dismissals by plaintiffs. Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Government Dismissal Authority under the FCA”

KBR Subcontractor’s “Delay” Costs Rejected as Unreasonable by Federal Circuit, No Remand to Cure Defects

Stephanie M. Harden

In a September 1, 2020, ruling, the Federal Circuit addressed the reasonableness of subcontractor costs stemming from a government-caused delay under KBR’s LOGCAP contract in Iraq. This decision is important for contractors across all industries given the expected flood of COVID-19-related claims involving government-caused delays and/or idle time. The decision provides new guidance on what contractors must show to demonstrate the reasonableness of subcontractor costs.

The case involved a KBR subcontract to First Kuwaiti Co. of Kuwait (“First Kuwaiti”) to transport trailers into Iraq. The dissent (Judge Newman) explains the operational significance of expeditiously delivering these trailers: soldiers were sleeping in “abandoned schools, . . . tents, vehicles, the ground, or any other place soldiers could put a sleeping bag.” The Army tasked KBR with delivering more than 18,000 trailers to multiple locations in Iraq by Christmas 2003, a deadline which was important for both morale and tactical reasons. KBR, in turn, subcontracted to First Kuwaiti. Continue reading “KBR Subcontractor’s “Delay” Costs Rejected as Unreasonable by Federal Circuit, No Remand to Cure Defects”

Executive Order Regarding Domestic Production and Purchase of Essential Medicines: A Lot to Unpack and More Than Meets the Eye

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and John M. Clerici 

On August 6, 2020, President Trump issued another Executive Order (“EO”) that will likely have dramatic and long-lasting effects on the pharmaceutical industry.[1] The impact of the EO may be far greater than currently anticipated. It is well-considered, well drafted, and structured in a way that is likely to survive if there is a change in Administration. The EO will have a greater and immediate impact on Medical Counter Measures (“MCMs”) for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, and emerging infectious diseases than on Essential Medicines. The inclusion of Critical Inputs (i.e., active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”)) and starting materials potentially makes the impact far reaching, especially when coupled with the significant funding from the federal government to support onshoring efforts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Continue reading “Executive Order Regarding Domestic Production and Purchase of Essential Medicines: A Lot to Unpack and More Than Meets the Eye”

Government Reliance on Waiver Argument to Keep Price Adjustment Windfall Fails

Scott Arnold

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit articulated limits to the government’s ability to rely on the waiver doctrine to enforce Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provisions of questionable legality, and, in so doing, cast doubt on the government’s “heads we win, tails you lose” approach to measuring the cost impact of simultaneous changes to a contractor’s cost accounting practices.

In The Boeing Company v. United States, 2019-2148 (Aug. 10, 2020), the Federal Circuit rejected the government’s argument that Boeing’s claim—which was based on an apparent conflict between (1) a statutory provision limiting the costs the government may recover for cost accounting practice changes to the aggregate increased cost to the government, and (2) a FAR provision under which the government’s recovery considers only the changes that increase costs to the government, and disregards changes that decrease costs to the government—was waived because Boeing did not raise the issue prior to contract award. Continue reading “Government Reliance on Waiver Argument to Keep Price Adjustment Windfall Fails”

Preparing for the Rollout of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification: It Is All about the Timing

Michael Joseph Montalbano

The Department of Defense (“DoD”) is expected to begin rolling out the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) program later this year. As a brief refresher, the CMMC is a certification system implemented by DoD to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) and other sensitive contract information. There are five CMMC levels of ascending sophistication. The most common CMMC levels are expected to be Level 1 and Level 3. Level 1 will require contractors to put into place basic safeguarding practices to protect federal contract information. Level 3 will require contractors to put into place more stringent safeguarding practices that are designed to protect CUI. Contractors receive their CMMC after they pass an assessment by a CMMC Third Party Assessment Organization (“C3PAO”) or an individual assessor.

Although DoD will not fully implement the CMMC program until 2026, more and more contracts will require offerors to hold a CMMC demonstrating that their organizations have implemented the necessary cybersecurity controls. A nightmare scenario for any defense contractor is to find itself unable to compete for a lucrative DoD contract due to insufficient time to obtain the required CMMC before proposal deadlines. Fortunately, the Accreditation Body (“AB”) that is responsible for rolling out the CMMC program has provided estimated timelines for contractors seeking a CMMC. Continue reading “Preparing for the Rollout of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification: It Is All about the Timing”

Recent and Possible Executive Orders on Drug Pricing: What You Need to Know

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

On July 24, 2020, President Trump signed three Executive Orders aimed at lowering prescription drug costs and increasing patients’ access to life-saving medications. A fourth Executive Order was discussed, which could reduce the prices Medicare Part B pays for drugs based upon international prices, unless the pharmaceutical industry implements measures in the next 30 days. Leaving politics and rhetoric aside, below are the key facts regarding the Executive Orders.

First Executive Order: Access to Affordable Life-Saving Medications

The Order: Click here to view the Order.

Effective Date:  July 24, 2020

Purpose: Requires Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”) to pass on the discounted prices they pay for insulin and epinephrine to low income patients. FQHCs are federally funded, community-based health care providers serving low income patients and underserved areas. Under the Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) 340B Drug Discount Program, drug manufacturers charge FQHCs statutorily discounted prices, sometimes as low as $0.01, for drugs including insulin and epinephrine. But FQHCs are not required to pass on the discounted prices to their patients. This Executive Order requires FQHCs to make insulin and epinephrine available to their patients at the price paid by the FQHC. The FQHC is permitted to charge a minimal administration fee. Continue reading “Recent and Possible Executive Orders on Drug Pricing: What You Need to Know”

Part B Interim Rule Bans Contractors from Using Covered Technology Starting August 13th: 5 Steps for Meeting the Compliance Deadline

Justin A. Chiarodo, Merle M. DeLancey, Jr., and Robyn N. Burrows

We previously discussed key elements of the newly released interim rule (“the interim rule” or “the rule”) implementing Part B of Section 889 (“Part B”), which prohibits the federal government from contracting with entities that use certain Chinese telecommunications equipment. This post provides a more detailed analysis of the scope and application of the rule, as well as five compliance recommendations given the impending August 13th deadline.

Rule Applies to All Contracts Effective August 13, 2020

Part B applies to all solicitations, options, and modifications on or after August 13th, including contracts for commercial items, commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, and contracts at or below both the micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds. Like it did with respect to Part A, GSA intends to issue a Mass Modification requiring contractors to certify compliance with Part B. GSA has also released Q&As and FAQs to assist contractors with Part B implementation. The interim rule acknowledges that Part B will have a broad impact across contractors in a range of industries, including healthcare, education, automotive, aviation, and aerospace. The rule, however, does not apply to federal grant recipients (which are subject to a separate rulemaking). Continue reading “Part B Interim Rule Bans Contractors from Using Covered Technology Starting August 13th: 5 Steps for Meeting the Compliance Deadline”

Our Clarion Call: Join Us in the ABA’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge

Dominique L. Casimir and Justin A. Chiarodo

This will not be a typical Government Contracts Navigator post. But it concerns an issue as important to the government contracts bar as any new law, regulation, or judicial decision. We all have stories about how we came to practice in this vibrant field, which plays such a critical role in protecting our nation and advancing the public policies of the United States—including due process, fair competition, and equal opportunity. But we cannot ignore the reality that the great diversity of the government contracts law practice is not well-reflected in our bar of practitioners.

The events of recent weeks have led us to think hard about we what can do to help achieve greater racial diversity in our practice area. As lawyers, we typically solve the most complex problems we face by developing creative teams whose members are open to learning, collaborating, and communicating. That is why, as a practice group, we’ve jumped at the chance to participate in the ABA Section of Public Contract Law’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge (the “21-Day Challenge”). We believe that the 21-Day Challenge gives us an opportunity to learn, collaborate, and communicate with one another on one of the most pressing and important challenges in our professional lives: creating and maintaining a diverse and inclusive government contracts bar. Our practice group is “all in,” and we invite you to join us as we answer the ABA Section of Public Contract Law’s invitation to participate in the 21-Day Challenge. Continue reading “Our Clarion Call: Join Us in the ABA’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge”

Stars III: Critical Proposal Issues Addressed by Industry Experts

On July 21, 2020, Blank Rome Government Contracts Partner Albert B. Krachman presented a webinar with PW Communications, Inc. Founder and CEO Phyllis Orenstein Bresler to address the recently released GSA STARS III Solicitation, a Multiple Award, IDIQ contract to provide information technology (“IT”) services and IT services-based solutions. The webinar addressed issues that potential offerors should consider when formulating a compliant, well-written, and compelling proposal response. The contract ceiling for STARS III is $50 billion over five years, with the potential to grow.

The recent cancellation of the Alliant 2 Small Business Contract positions STARS III as one of the premier acquisition vehicles for federal IT acquisitions.

The webinar:

  • Identified opportunity areas, risk issues, RFP ambiguities, open questions, and key concepts.
  • Addressed Solicitation Sections L and M and presented lessons learned from the trenches.

Click here to view a recording of the webinar, and here to view the presentation slides.

Newly Released Interim Rule Implementing Part B of Section 889

Justin A. Chiarodo, Merle M. DeLancey Jr., and Robyn N. Burrows

On July 10, the government issued the    long-awaited Interim Rule implementing Part B of Section 889 (here is a link to the pre-publication version, with the official version soon to follow). Part B prohibits the federal government from contracting with entities that use certain Chinese telecommunications equipment (previously discussed in our blog posts here and here). The Interim Rule is 86 pages and addresses issues related to compliance with Part B, as well as clarifying aspects of Part A.

These are the key points federal contractors need to know:

  • Effective Date: The effective date remains August 13, 2020. The ban applies to solicitations, options, and modifications on or after August 13. However, as we previously discussed, the Department of Defense may allow its contractors more time to comply, despite the statutory deadline.
  • Required Representation: An offeror must represent that, after conducting a reasonable inquiry, it does/does not use covered telecommunications equipment/services.
    • “Reasonable inquiry” means an inquiry designed to uncover any information in the entity’s possession about the identity of the producer or provider of covered telecommunications equipment or services used by the entity. An internal or third-party audit is not required.
  • Scope of “Use”: Applies to the contractor’s use of covered technology, regardless of whether it is used to perform a federal contract. Thus, a contractor’s commercial operations are included.
  • Affiliates/Subsidiaries: The required representation is not applicable to affiliates or subsidiaries at this time. The FAR Council is considering whether to expand the scope of the representation/prohibition to cover an offeror’s domestic affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries. If expanded, it would be effective August 13, 2021.
  • Subcontractors: The ban and required representation are not applicable to subcontractors at this time. The ban only applies at the prime contractor level and does not include a flow down obligation.
  • Detailed Waiver Process: The Interim Rule includes a detailed and complex process for seeking a waiver (really a two-year delayed application).
  • Suggested Compliance Steps: The Interim Rule suggests contractors adopt a “robust, risk-based compliance approach” to include educating personnel on the ban and implementing corporate enterprise tracking to identify covered equipment/services.

Regulators are still seeking feedback from industry, which suggests the government’s willingness to incorporate changes in a final rule. But prime contractors need to act now. In the next 30 days, prime contractors need to determine through a “reasonable inquiry” whether they use covered equipment, regardless of whether that use relates to performance of a federal contract. To demonstrate a reasonable inquiry, contractors should memorialize all steps taken and decisions made in performing the inquiry.

A more detailed analysis is forthcoming. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding compliance, please contact one of Blank Rome’s Government Contracts practice group attorneys for guidance.