Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Skye Mathieson

As we discussed during Crowell & Moring’s webinar last week Top Headlines, Headaches, and Developments for Government Contractors to Watch in 2015, the recent ASBCA decision in Laguna Construction is likely to reverberate in 2015 and beyond. This case introduced the doctrine of “antecedent breach” in the ASBCA as a means of denying legitimate contractor claims.

In Laguna, after the completion of the contract, the contractor submitted a $3 million claim based on a dozen separate task orders under a large IDIQ contract. Mid-way through litigation, two contractor employees pled guilty to receiving kickbacks from subcontractors on some, but not all, of the Task Orders at issue in the litigation. The Government then added Fraud as an affirmative defense at the Board, arguing that Laguna’s entire claim should be denied because Laguna’s employees had pled to Fraud on some of the Task Orders.

It is worth noting that:

• The company was not criminally charged or convicted of fraud;

• The employees who pled to fraud were a Project Manager and a VP; and

• Many of the invoices subject to Laguna’s claim were unrelated to the employee fraud;

Nevertheless, the Board denied the contractor’s claim for unpaid invoices in its entirety. The Board held that the employees’ acceptance of kickbacks should be imputed to their employer, because they were “operating…within the scope of their employment.” Thus, the employee-fraud constituted the company’s “material breach” of the contract, and this first material breach excused the government’s subsequent breach of failing to pay routine invoices.

The Board held that it was irrelevant whether kickbacks were actually paid under every task order under appeal because, applying Federal Circuit precedent, “any degree of fraud” is “material” as a matter of law.

One of the big takeaways from Laguna as we move into 2015 is the recognition that Fraud may increasingly be wielded as a shield to deny claims, including “employee fraud” committed not by the company, and even including claims on invoices and Task Orders unrelated to Fraud.

This is different than the scenario where the Government uses fraud convictions to uphold terminations. It is also different than prior ASBCA case law, where the company itself had been convicted of Fraud or the fraudulent conduct related to the specific invoices under appeal. Neither of those facts was present in Laguna, but the Board still found that Laguna’s vicarious liability for its employees’ fraud constituted a material breach sufficient to deny Laguna’s monetary claim for work performed.

Going forward, in addition to ensuring proactive ethics and compliance controls during contract performance, contractors must closely evaluate and be aware of the impacts of any employee fraud on potential claims, including the otherwise “uninfected” parts of its claim.

(This post is part of a new Claims series on the Government Contracts Legal Forum – have a question or an idea for a future topic? E-mail us at smcbrady@crowell.com and smathieson@crowell.com.)

 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Steve McBrady Steve McBrady

Steve McBrady is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He also serves as a member of the firm’s Finance and Strategic Growth Committees, where he has played a leading role in expanding client service offerings throughout the U.S.…

Steve McBrady is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He also serves as a member of the firm’s Finance and Strategic Growth Committees, where he has played a leading role in expanding client service offerings throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

In recent years, Steve has received the National Law Journal’s “Winning Litigator” award as a lawyer who has “tackled some of the most widely watched cases of the year,” as well as the “D.C. Trailblazer” award, recognizing lawyers who have “made significant marks on the practice.” In 2018, he was named “Government Contracts MVP” by Law360.

Photo of Skye Mathieson Skye Mathieson

Skye Mathieson is a partner in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability…

Skye Mathieson is a partner in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability issues, defective pricing, fiscal law questions, prime-sub disputes, bid protests, internal investigations, and responding to DCAA audits. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Skye spent several years as a trial attorney at the procurement litigation division of the Air Force Headquarters for Legal Operations, where he pioneered the seminal “Laguna Defense” that is now widely raised and litigated at the Boards of Contract Appeals.

Skye has extensive experience litigating cases before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Through this litigation, Skye has gained valuable experience in a wide variety of industries, such as aerospace (fighter jets, satellites, refueling tankers, simulators, and counter-measures), information technology and software development, construction, healthcare services, intelligence gathering, battlefield services and logistics, scrap disposal, base maintenance and repair contracts, and many others.

Skye also has experience counseling and litigating on a broad range of legal issues, including defective pricing, cost disallowances, contract terminations, unique commercial item issues, constructive changes, differing site conditions, statute of limitations problems, CDA jurisdictional hurdles, contract fraud, Government superior knowledge, unabsorbed overhead and Eichleay damages, CICA stays and overrides, and small business issues.

Having advocated and litigated on behalf of both the government and contractors, Skye has unique insights into both parties’ perspectives that he leverages when exploring and negotiating settlements or other avenues for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Where settlements are not possible, Skye embraces opportunities for courtroom advocacy. He has significant trial experience examining both expert and fact witnesses on both direct and cross examination, as well as taking and defending depositions, drafting hearing briefs and dispositive motions, and managing millions of pages of document production.

Skye is an active member of the government contracts community. He is the editor-in-chief of the BCA Bar Journal, a quarterly publication of the Boards of Contract Appeals Bar Association, which allows him to work alongside judges, government attorneys, and in-house counsel in the production of each issue. He is also a member of the ABA Section of Public Contract Law.