Photo of David B. Robbins

This week’s episode covers government shutdown, trafficking in persons policy, and False Claims Act news, and is hosted by partner David Robbins. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without.

Photo of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Jason M. CrawfordPhoto of Sarah Hill

On January 26, 2017, the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in United States ex rel. Omar Badr v. Triple Canopy, one of four False Claims Act decisions that the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of the Court’s June 2016 holding regarding the implied certification theory in Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016).  In Triple Canopy, the relator alleges that a security contractor responsible for ensuring the safety of an air base in a combat zone knowingly employed guards who allegedly falsified marksmanship scores, and presented claims to the government for payment for those unqualified guards. The defendant prevailed on a motion to dismiss at the district court after demonstrating that the government failed to plead that it ever reviewed — and therefore ever relied on — the allegedly false scorecards. United States ex rel. Badr v. Triple Canopy, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 888 (E.D. Va. 2013). The Fourth Circuit reversed, explaining: “Common sense strongly suggests that the Government’s decision to pay a contractor for providing base security in an active combat zone would be influenced by knowledge that the guards could not, for lack of a better term, shoot straight … If Triple Canopy believed that the marksmanship requirement was immaterial to the Government’s decision to pay, it was unlikely to orchestrate a scheme to falsify records on multiple occasions.” 775 F.3d 628, 637–38 (4th Cir. 2015).

Continue Reading

Photo of David B. RobbinsPhoto of Peter J. Eyre

Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without, with the latest edition hosted by partners David Robbins and Peter Eyre and including updates on GSA, NASA, and DoD rules, DIUx’s

Photo of David B. RobbinsPhoto of Peter J. Eyre

Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without. This latest edition is hosted by partners David Robbins and Peter Eyre and includes updates on defense acquisition, modernizing federal IT systems,

Photo of David B. RobbinsPhoto of Peter J. Eyre

To disclose or not to disclose-that is not the only question.

The Mandatory Disclosure Rule can be challenging for government contractors to work with, and common methods of analyzing disclosure obligations cause contractors to miss potentially significant risks to their enterprise. The requirement to timely disclose credible evidence of a Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interests, bribery or gratuity violations, violations of the civil False Claims Act, or significant overpayments on federal government contracts can be challenging to interpret.  The terms “timely disclose,” “credible evidence,” and “significant overpayments” are not defined in the rule, and no authoritative guidance is available about their meaning or their interpretations.  As a result, contractors spend significant time and money assessing whether – and when – a disclosure is required, and then crafting their disclosures to help explain their analysis.


Continue Reading

Photo of Jason M. Crawford

On September 29, 2015, the Fourth Circuit agreed to hear an interlocutory appeal in U.S. ex rel. Michaels et al. v. Agape Senior Community, Inc. to address whether the statistical method of extrapolation may be used to prove liability, in addition to damages, under the False Claims Act. The Fourth Circuit will be the first