July 8, 2020

Volume X, Number 190

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Say What You Need to Say: Supreme Court Clears Path for Implied Certification Theory of Liability Under False Claims Act

Most government contractors in the construction industry are well aware that by providing goods or services to government-funded construction projects, they are potentially subject to liability under the False Claims Act. Like most federal anticorruption legislation, the False Claims Act contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions. Under the civil portion of the False Claims Act, sanctions are imposed for those who knowingly submit, or cause another person or entity to submit, false claims for payment of government funds. A contractor in violation of the False Claims Act could be liable for three times the government’s damages, along with hefty civil penalties. For each of the past four years, the U.S. Department of Justice has recovered over $3.5 billion under the False Claims Act.

The Supreme Court of the United States increased exposure under the False Claims Act on June 16, 2016, when it issued a unanimous decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, finding that an implied false certification “can be a basis for liability” under the False Claims Act. The Court noted two preconditions for finding such liability:

  1. The claim must not merely request payment; it must also make specific representations about the goods or services provided; and
  2. The contractor’s “failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements” necessarily results in “misleading half-truths.” 

The court found that every submission of a claim for payment implicitly represents that the claimant is legally entitled to payment, and that failing to disclose violations of material legal requirements renders the claim misleading.

For construction contractors, this means that your representations in the bidding process, submissions for payment, or even submissions of compliance may be treated as an implied certification that you have complied fully with all applicable laws, regulations, and contract terms. In other words, if you are later found to have violated the False Claims Act, but had not disclosed as much, it may constitute a misrepresentation in violation of the act.  

In order to constitute a misrepresentation, the undisclosed violation must be material and knowing, though. While future court decisions will clarify the “materiality” and “knowingly” requirements for implied false certification, it appears that contractors will face a higher risk of liability post-Escobar when doing business with the government. Therefore, contractors may want to be more diligent and aware when complying with statutory, regulatory, or contract terms that appear material, and in verifying compliance of labor qualifications or materials supplied by subcontractors and suppliers for any government-sponsored project. For contractors in the construction industry, this would likely include:

  • authentication of minority-owned, woman-owned, and disadvantaged business enterprise participation rates;
  • validation of substandard or agreed-upon materials;
  • verification of hours charged to the project;
  • attestation to the labor qualifications of subcontractors and suppliers, as well as verification of the materials supplied by subcontractors and suppliers; and
  • compliance with applicable federal statutes and regulations, including the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 and Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements
© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 27


About this Author

Eric Berg, Construction Attorney, Ogletree Deakins Law Firm
Of Counsel

Eric A. Berg focuses his practice on construction law, in both litigation and transactional work. Eric has represented developers, international corporations, contractors, subcontractors, construction managers and designers on diverse projects, from Freedom Tower in New York to Willis Tower in Chicago, from dredging the Mississippi River to building casinos in Las Vegas, from Silicon Valley tech hubs to Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

Prior to joining Ogletree, for three years Eric was Deputy General Counsel at Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, in Oak Brook, Illinois, and General...

DJ Harris, Employment Litigation, Ogletree Deakins Law FIrm

David “DJ” Harris is an associate in the Firm’s Greenville, South Carolina office. Mr. Harris' practice includes all facets of workplace-related litigation defense in federal and state courts including cases involving wage and hour laws, Title VII, ADA, Section 1981, and other anti-discrimination laws and employment-related torts. Mr. Harris assists clients in workplace disputes in a variety of fields including the healthcare, manufacturing, and financial services industries.

In addition to workplace-related litigation, Mr. Harris’ broader practice regularly involves assisting clients in the construction and commercial development industry in a variety of industry specific matters such as construction loan litigation, property disputes, and defect cases. 

Jean Kim, Litigation, Employment, Ogletree Deakins Law Firm

Jean Kim is an attorney in Ogletree Deakins’ Charleston, South Carolina office.  Jean grew up in Austin, Texas and moved to South Carolina during high school.  She graduated from Clemson University in 2007 with honors, where she majored in Biosystems Engineering and minored in Environmental and Natural Resources.  After Clemson, Jean worked at an engineering firm in the Greenville, South Carolina area as a Civil and Stormwater Engineer until she decided it was time to pursue her legal career.

Jean’s practice includes all facets of workplace-related litigation defense in federal and...