Howard Roth authored an article on Buy America and Buy American for the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.

Below, learn about the differences between the two acts and why they matter to contractors.

In this first year of Donald Trump’s administration, American sourcing requirements are receiving heightened focus that impacts business by providing opportunities and threats.

For instance, President Trump’s “Buy American HireAmerican” executive order restates the policy of the government to buy American. Federal agencies are required to make an assessment of what the executive order calls the “Buy American Laws” aimed at maximum use of United States materials. The executive order is now on the road to changing the landscape of preferences for American products by the end of the year. Continue Reading Buy America and Buy American: What’s the difference and why it matters

Escobar was initially feared as authorizing another avenue for plaintiffs bringing False Claims Act (FCA) claims. Some federal district courts, however, have used the two-step test of Escobar as a stringent requirement for an implied certification theory for proceeding against a contractor. Other courts, however, have charted a different pathfinding that the two-test step is not a requirement, but rather one means of establishing an implied certification theory based claim.  This is an important development for companies to understand in the face of FCA litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Escobar that a claim under the implied certification theory, which we wrote about previously, required that: (1) the claim make specific representations about the goods or services and (2) the failure to disclose those representations make the claim misleading. The issue arising in recent cases is whether Escobar created an exclusive two-step test that applies to any false certification theory.

Some recent cases illustrate diverging views on the application of the two-part test:

Continue Reading Escobar: Two-Stepping Away from False Claims Act Liability?

With every new administration, there is both great uncertainty and opportunity in federal government contracting. To help you navigate the rough seas of doing business with the federal government in this new administration, we have assembled nationally recognized practitioners who will cover topics relevant to government contractors large and small, novice and seasoned. Session topics include:
– Ten Things Every Contractor Needs to Know When Doing Business with the Federal Government
James F. Nagle | Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP | Seattle, WA
 
– Writing a Winning Technical Proposal – From the Contracting Officer’s Perspective
Mona Carlson, Mary Jo Juarez | PTAC Kitsap Economic Dvlpmnt. Alliance – Navy Contracting Officer (retired) | Kitsap, WA
 
– Keys to Winning Bid Protests and Defending Contract Awards
Adam K. Lasky | Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP | Seattle, WA
 
– Navigating the Complex Rules Governing Data Rights
Jonathan M. Baker | Crowell & Moring LLP | Washington D.C.
 
– Overlooked Risks of Being a Lower-Tier Government Contractor
Alan C. Rither | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | Richland, WA
 
– Mistakes to Avoid in the Claims and Litigation Process
Donald G. Featherstun | Seyfarth Shaw LLP | San Francisco, CA
 
– Adapting to Buy American and Domestic Preference Rules in the Trump Administration
Howard W. Roth | Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP | Seattle, WA
 
– Understanding & Managing the Risk of Suspension & Debarment
Dominique L. Casimir | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholler LLP | Washington D.C.

Thursday, November 16th 

SEATING IS VERY LIMITED AND WILL GO QUICKLY!
You may also attend via WEBINAR

Register for seminar or webinar at www.washingtonptac.org/seminar

Click HERE to see the event flyer.

 SEATTLE AGC BUILDING
Second-floor conference room
1200 Westlake Avenue North – Seattle WA 98109
Parking will be validated.

14567606128_ee826cf9bd_kFollowing Executive Order 13788 issued April 18, 2017, “Buy American and Hire American,” contractors and subcontractors should prepare for increased enforcement of the Buy American Act (BAA), Buy America legislation, the “Little Buy American Acts,” and related civil or criminal prosecution under the False Claims Acts (FCA).

In recent years, the Department of Justice has increased efforts to prosecute FCA violations in concert with BAA or Buy American violations. In 2016 alone the Department of Justice obtained more than $4.7 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases under the FCA, its third highest recovery.

Every contractor or subcontractor on a federally funded project supplying construction materials must certify that the materials used are in compliance with the BAA.  Construction work for the DOT, DoD, and other federal agencies may trigger compliance requirements under both with the BAA and Little Buy American Acts. Certificates of compliance, however, can be fruitful grounds for federal prosecutors looking for FCA violations

When a certificate of compliance does not accurately reflect the origin of the materials used under the BAA or Little Buy American Acts, there is a high likelihood that FCA liability may follow. Executive Order 13788 is likely to bring additional attention to the dual enforcement of buying American under the FCA.

A few recent cases illustrate the FCA risks arising from BAA and related laws that require compliance certifications:

  • In 2016, Wisconsin-based architectural firm Novum Structures LLC entered a guilty plea and agreed to pay $3 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability under the False Claims Act 18 U.S.C. § 1001 arising from its concealment of the use of foreign materials on construction projects involving federal funds. Novum has also agreed not to contest its debarment from federal funded projects.

Continue Reading Uptick in Buy American Enforcement Means Increased False Claims Act Risks

A federal judge in the Western District of Washington has ruled that tribal employees may still be liable in their individual capacities under the False Claims Act, even if Native American tribes themselves are protected from such suits by sovereign immunity. This interpretation could have important implications for Alaska Native-owned and Native American-owned businesses as federal courts across the country confront a range of tribal sovereignty issues in the coming months. Continue Reading Tribal Employees Potentially Liable Under False Claims Act, Washington Federal Court Finds

ASBCAWhile the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board) has jurisdiction over contract claims, the ASBCA does not have jurisdiction over fraud.  This can lead to competing cases in multiple jurisdictions if the government has a claim of fraud against a contractor while the contractor is pursuing a contract claim concerning the same contract at the ASBCA.  To manage these conflicts, the Board will stay the Board proceeding or dismiss it without prejudice pending the outcome of the fraud proceeding based on the consideration of the following four factors: 1) whether the facts, issues and witnesses in the two proceedings were similar; 2) whether the parallel matter would be compromised by proceeding here; 3) whether the non-moving party would be harmed by more delay; and 4) whether the duration of the suspension sought was reasonable.

In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, the ASBCA held that a request to stay or dismiss without prejudice had limits.  In 2010, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) submitted certified claims for subcontract settlement costs, which it later appealed to the ASBCA.  In 2013, the ASBCA dismissed these appeals without prejudice because of a pending FCA suit.  In February 2016, the ASBCA reinstated the appeals.  The government moved to stay or dismiss the appeals again because the FCA case was still in the discovery stage.  For the fourth factor, the Board held the stay sought was not reasonable because it would essentially be an indefinite stay.  For the third factor, the Board held another dismissal could prejudice KBR due to the length of time that had occurred since the certified claims had been submitted.  The Board found there was a “substantial risk” that evidence would become stale if a more significant delay occurred.  For the second factor, the government had admitted the Board proceeding would not compromise the government’s FCA case as long as it could obtain complete discovery and develop the record.  For the first factor, the Board held similarity of facts, witnesses, and issues between the two proceedings alone were insufficient to dismiss the appeal.  Therefore, the ASBCA denied the government’s motion to dismiss or stay the appeals. Continue Reading Fraud Jurisdiction at the ASBCA: Complicated and Complex

James F. NagleJames F. Nagle will give a special presentation at The Seminar Group’s upcoming 23rd Annual Washington Construction Law conference on September 15 at the Hilton Seattle. In Jim’s federal construction law presentation, he will provide an update on the False Claims Act, new programs  from the Small Business Administration and other new developments affecting construction law. Guests of Jim are eligible for a $100 discount with the promo code “FAC100.” Continue Reading Join James Nagle at the 23rd Annual Washington Construction Law Conference on September 15th

5856856317_994b86725b_oThe Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal’s (ASBCA) decision in BAE Systems Tactical Vehicle Systems LP, ASBCA Nos. 59491, 60433 (July 25, 2016), denying the government’s motion to stay appeals due to a parallel False Claims Act (FCA) case in federal district court is an important reminder that the agency boards of contract appeals do not have jurisdiction over fraud.  The decision underlines the CDA jurisdictional mandate and required statutory government contracts expertise of board judges to decide federal contractor claims, and the right of the contractor to have such claims decided by the board even when a fraud case is pending in federal court. Therefore, determination of a Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claim due to alleged defective pricing under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) may proceed to a decision even if there is a district court FCA case concerning the same defective pricing allegation.  This decision also highlights the benefit to a contractor of electing the agency boards over the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), as the government cannot assert a fraud counterclaim as may be done in a CDA claim action at the COFC.

The appeals concern a $56M CDA government claim that BAE provided defective cost or pricing data in connection with award of the Army’s Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles and BAE’s CDA TINA offset claim of $65M.  The government moved to stay the appeals due to a civil defective pricing FCA case in federal district court.  The ASBCA denied the motion to stay and lifted a temporary stay.

Four Factors Considered In Parallel Proceedings

In denying the motion the ASBCA considered four factors: (1) whether the facts, issues, and witnesses in both proceedings were substantially similar; (2) whether the on-going investigation or litigation would be compromised by going forward with the appeal; (3) the extent to which the proposed stay could harm the non-moving party; and (4) whether the duration of the requested stay is reasonable. Continue Reading ASBCA Appeals Proceed Despite Parallel False Claims Act Case

6071512063_8dc286774e_oLast week, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar.  As we discussed in a prior blog, the Universal Healthcare case presented two important questions regarding the scope and breadth of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq.) (the “FCA”): (1) whether the implied certification theory of liability is appropriate under the FCA; and (2) if so, whether the implied certification theory should be limited to statutes, regulations, and/or contract provisions that expressly condition payment upon compliance.

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Court approved the implied certification theory of liability under the FCA, but held that its application should be limited.  Specifically, the Court explained that FCA liability may attach under the implied certification theory when the following two conditions are satisfied:

  1. The claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided; and
  1. The failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements makes those representations misleading half-truths.

The Court’s decision emphasized that the FCA is not “a vehicle for punishing garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations.”  To curb the expansive reach of the FCA, the Court turned its attention to the impact of the materiality requirement as it relates to the implied certification theory.  Explaining that a noncompliance with a statute, regulation, or contractual requirement “must be material to the Government’s payment decision to be actionable [under the FCA],” the Court cautioned that the materiality standard is “demanding.” Continue Reading Supreme Court: Implied Certification Theory Can Create Falsity under the False Claims Act…But Only Sometimes

6071512063_8dc286774e_oA powerful tool to combat fraud, waste, and abuse, the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq.) (the “FCA”) imposes civil liability upon any individual or corporation who knowingly submits, or causes the submission of, a false or fraudulent claim to the United States.  As we discussed in a previous blog, the amount of damages recovered pursuant to the FCA suggests that the Government’s aggressive enforcement of the FCA is unlikely to subside any time soon.  In fact, recent figures reflect that the Government’s recovery of damages and settlements under the FCA has exceeded $17 billion since 2009.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in United Health Srvs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, an FCA case. The United Health Services case presents two important questions for the Supreme Court concerning the scope of the FCA: (1) whether the implied certification theory of liability is appropriate under the FCA; and (2) if so, whether the implied certification theory should be limited to statutes, regulations, or contract provisions that expressly condition payment upon compliance. Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs the Viability of the “Implied Certification” Theory Under the False Claims Act