Government Contracts Navigator

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”