Government Contracts Legal Blog

False Claims Act

Posted by Dan McAuliffe on Jul 21, 2017 2:28:13 PM


The False Claims Act

The United States Justice Department recently disclosed that the large health insurance company Humana Inc. is under investigation for potentially defrauding Medicare. The Justice Department is currently examining the U.S. False Claims Act (FCA) violation of three companies alleged with committing Medicare fraud including Aetna Inc., Health Net Inc., and Bravo Health Inc. which is a division of Cigna Corp. A Humana spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the company has publicly disclosed it was part of an investigation by the United States Justice Department. Statistics suggest that the FCA has been the most successful weapon in combatting fraud against taxpayers with more than $40 billion recovered by the United States government since 1986 due to false claim lawsuits. 


 Contact a False Claims Attorney

Read More

Topics: Appellate Law

Recovering from the Government for Negligent Estimates

Posted by Joseph Whitcomb on Mar 14, 2017 2:49:13 PM

Schedule a Time to Speak  with One of Our Government  Contracts Attorneys!

Are Agencies Responsible for Their Negligent Estimates?

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Agility Defense and Government Services, Inc.'s claim under the Negligent Estimates Theory in government contracting.  In Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc v. U.S., a contractor, Agility Defense, bid on and won a contract to dispose of surplus military property for the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), a department within DLA (Defense Logistics Agency).  Historically, the DRMS had run their own reutilization, demilitarization, and reduction to scrap process, but began contracting the process in 2007.  Agility and two other contractors were awarded contracts of which Agility was awarded a contract to operate six facilities.  As part of the contract, awardees could sell any scrap they salvaged, without reservation, to offset costs.  As part of the solicitation and in response to requests for workload history and projections, DRMS provided a website link to historical data.

Read More

Topics: Appellate Law, Government Contracting

Kingdomware Technologies v. United States Pulled off SCOTUS Calendar

Posted by Dan McAuliffe on Nov 8, 2016 10:26:06 AM

Kingdomware Technologies v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) was scheduled to hear oral arguments on Kingdomware Technologies v. United States on September 9 in a case involving whether the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) must prioritize service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (“SDVOSBs”) when it buys supplies and services. The case has been withdrawn from the calendar and both sides are required to prepare briefs filed regarding whether the case is now "moot" as the source of the underlying controversy has ended because the disputed contracts in the case “have been fully performed….”  If the case is moot it will be dismissed.

Read More

Topics: Appellate Law, Government Contracting

Medicare Penalties Hospitals Face

Posted by Joseph Whitcomb on Jul 15, 2014 10:51:38 PM

How to protect your medical facility from hefty Medicare Penalties

A recent healthcare news article out of North Carolina highlighted hefty Medicare penalties that local hospitals may be facing.   Though the article only discusses local institutions, the issues illuminated are faced by hospitals across the country as the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act continues.

Read More

Topics: Appellate Law

CVE SDVOSB denial--Challenging in federal court

Posted by Joseph Whitcomb on Dec 4, 2013 11:01:10 PM

 Challenging a CVE SDVOSB denial in pre-award contest

In KWV, Inc. v. United States, a disappointed bidder filed a pre-award bid protest of the CVE's denial  of  their SDVOSB status.  In that case,  the US Court of Federal Claims found the CVE’s reliance on the Veteran applicant’s residency alone was “arbitrary and capricious” and not in accordance with VA’s regulations.  KWV, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 119, 127 (Fed. Cl. 2013).  In deciding in the Veteran’s favor, the Court indicated that  “there [was] nothing in the administrative record to suggest that [the Veteran] was not exercising sufficient control over [the company]” and “the government has not provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion…nor articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made”  Id., see also Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi, 238 F.3d at 1333 (quoting Latecoere Int'l, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 19 F.3d 1342, 1356 (11th Cir. 1994)); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962))(internal quotations removed).

Read More

Topics: Appellate Law, Government Contracting

Government Contracting is not for the uninformed

Tune in here for the latest in legal news surrounding government contracting

Whitcomb Law, PC is dedicated to helping government contractors extract all the benefits that can be derived from doing business with federal, state, and local governments.  We strive to provide content on this blog that is up-to-date, relevant, and easy to read.  We enjoy reading your feedback especially when it helps us improve the way in which we serve you.

Our sources of information include

  • Recent rulings by the Court of Federal Claims
  • FAR Council
  • SBA rule makers
  • Center for Verification and Eligibility
  • News media
  • Our Clients

Subscribe to Our Legal Blog

Recent Posts