• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Government Contracts Blog

  • Home
  • Services
  • Meet Our Team

Is the False Claims Act Becoming a Catch-All Penalty for Any and Every Contractual Breach?

March 18, 2016 By Jeffrey Belkin

A recent Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement announcement suggests that the government intends to continue to use the False Claims Act (FCA), rather than more traditional breach of contract or tort claims or regulatory authority, to administer its contracts. On March 7, 2016, the DOJ announced its $3 million settlement with ArmorSource LLC to resolve FCA allegations against the company. ArmorSource contracted with the U.S. Army in 2006 to provide ballistic helmets for combat. In 2010, the Army recalled the helmets after rounds of failed ballistic safety tests. The government alleged that from 2006 to 2009, ArmorSource delivered helmets that had been manufactured and tested using methods that did not conform to the contract requirements and failed to meet the contract performance standards.

ArmorSource subcontracted the manufacturing of the helmets to Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI). Two FPI employees filed a qui tam lawsuit under the FCA. The relators claimed that ArmorSource knew that the helmets they provided were defective, and in fact directed their employees to use substandard and defective materials and prohibited procedures to make the helmets. The relators further contended that ArmorSource implemented practices to conceal the defects in the helmets from the Department of Defense, and submitted false certifications to induce the department to pay them for the purchase of the helmets. The government chose not to intervene in the case. The relators will receive $450,000 of the settlement under the provision of the FCA that allows individuals suing on behalf of the government to receive a share of any recovery.

A representative for the DOJ claimed the settlement is a “reminder to all government contractors that they must deliver on their promises.” The settlement suggests, however, that the government is going to continue taking an expansive view of the scope of the FCA, using the statute as a catch-all penalty for any and every contractual breach.

The qui tam case is U.S. ex rel. Ponzio, et al. v. Rabintex Industries, Ltd., et al., No. 1:10-cv-588 (E.D. Tex.).

Filed Under: Government Contract-Related Investigations and the False Claims Act Tagged With: Breach of Contract, False Claims Act (FCA), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

About Jeffrey Belkin

Jeff Belkin is a partner in the firm’s Construction & Government Contracts Group. Jeff represents contractors in False Claims Act and internal investigations, claims litigation and procurement protests, and advises on complex compliance issues.

[Read Bio]

Primary Sidebar

This blog is a service of Alston & Bird’s Government Contracts team and provides insights on cases, rules, trends, and latest developments in local, state, and federal government contracting. Our attorney observations include analysis of investigations, litigation, protests and issues affecting present or prospective prime contractors, subcontractors, and grant recipients across various industries.

Archives

RECEIVE EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS WHEN NEW POSTS ARE ADDED.

A confirmation email has been sent to the email address provided.

Categories

Secondary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • The OFCCP’s New Contractor Portal: Here is What Federal Contractors and Subcontractors Ought to Know
  • Biden’s Infrastructure Funding Comes with Strings Attached
  • Department of Defense Suspends the CMMC Pilot Program And CMMC Requirements In DoD Solicitations Pending Major Changes For CMMC 2.0
  • Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity: Biden Implements New Reporting Requirements on IT Government Contractors
  • Is There a Road Forward for Biden’s Infrastructure Plans?
Copyright © 2022 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.