October 1, 2020

Volume X, Number 275

October 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 28, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Universal Health Ruling Should Refocus Contractor Compliance/Claim Submission Efforts and Litigation Strategies

In another unanimous decision affecting government contractors, the Supreme Court on June 16, 2016 ruled that the “implied false certification” theory can be a basis for liability under the False Claims Act. Today, we take a quick look at Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), and discuss its impact on government contractors.

First, the decision snuffed out any remaining hopes of contractors that the implied certification theory would be thrown out. After Universal Health, implied certification is the law of the land. But that might not be the biggest takeaway from the decision. Government contractors should be aware of the impacts on their compliance and claims submission systems as well as their litigation strategies.

In Universal Health, Justice Thomas explained that misleading “half-truths” can be the basis for FCA liability. At the same time, the Court erected a barrier to liability in the form of a materiality standard that it described as “demanding” and “rigorous.” The Court said that materiality cannot be found where the noncompliance is “minor or insubstantial” but did not set a bright line. Instead, the decision focused on explaining the materiality standard.

Compliance and Claims Submissions: Focus on Increased Oversight and Knowledge of Certification Requirements   

In Universal Health, Justice Thomas postulated that “would-be defendants” could not anticipate and prioritize compliance obligations under a scheme where an expressly designated condition of payment automatically triggers liability. In fact, the Court held that labeling a requirement as a “condition of payment” is relevant but is not dispositive of the materiality standard.

The Court pointed to examples from both ends of the materiality spectrum. On one end, even if the Government failed to specify that the guns it orders must shoot straight, because “a reasonable person would realize the imperative of a functioning firearm,” that requirement would be material. On the other end, if the Government contracts for health services and adds a requirement that contractors use “American-made staplers,” that would not be material in most circumstances. As the Court said, the FCA does not adopt such “an extraordinarily expansive view of liability.”

Contractors should pay attention to the information flow from the Government and should focus their compliance and oversight efforts accordingly. Those efforts should include questions about a solicitation’s certification requirements at the pre-proposal stage of a procurement. Those questions should continue through the performance period to the claims submission phase. Contractors should take advantage of that normal “back and forth” so they thoroughly understand what the Government wants and what it considers important.

Contractors should incorporate that knowledge and information into their compliance programs and infuse and increase their oversight accordingly. Before you submit a claim for payment, make sure you know the certification requirements and know what the Government expects. You should know your product or service and know how it does (or doesn’t) meet those requirements and where the grey areas are.

Litigation Strategy: Focus on Dispositive Motions

In Universal Health, the Court rejected the argument that “materiality is too fact intensive for courts to dismiss False Claims Act cases on a motion to dismiss or at summary judgment.” In effect, the Court is inviting motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on materiality, and FCA litigators should accept that invitation. Justice Thomas provided two concrete examples where statutory, regulatory or contractual requirements likely would not be “material.” The following questions should be asked based on those examples:

  • If the Government knew that certain requirements were violated, did it pay a claim in full anyway?

  • Has the Government routinely paid similar types of claims in full despite knowing that requirements were violated? And has the Government signaled no change in its position?

Contractors and their litigation counsel should first focus on the four corners of the Complaint and then focus discovery on these types of questions about Government actions. The Supreme Court called the materiality standard a “rigorous” one. A rigorous standard would require dismissal if a Complaint did not allege sufficient facts to establish that a requirement was material. The Court also pointed to the plausibility and particularity pleading standards in the federal rules. Contractors should push district courts to enforce these rules and this new standard of materiality. Where facts revealed through discovery show that the materiality standard is not met, contractors should file for summary judgment and should push the district courts to enforce the rules and the new standard.

Most contractors do not have the kind of budgets that allow for protracted litigation. After Universal Health, there should be more of a focus on dispositive motions at the initial pleading stages and after discovery, at least for claims based on the implied certification theory. Perhaps that new focus on dispositive motions will be a counterweight to the Government’s current use of expensive FCA litigation to force compliance through an early settlement. We bet that a new focus on materiality in the early stages of litigation coupled with the “government knowledge” defense will help level the playing field for contractors.

Universal Health has been described as a “loss” for contractors. But implied certification already was an accepted theory of FCA liability everywhere except the Seventh Circuit. Going forward, with the very high materiality threshold set by the Supreme Court, contractors facing FCA claims may turn out to be the real winners.

Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2020.National Law Review, Volume VI, Number 175


About this Author

michael maloney, holland hart, bid protest lawyer, government contracts attorney
Of Counsel

Michael D. Maloney is Of Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office representing clients in all phases of government contracts and disputes in a wide array of industries. A seasoned litigator with over 25 years in private practice, Mr. Maloney strategically advises clients how and where to pursue complex bid protest matters before the Government Accountability Office, the Court of Federal Claims and other federal courts, or directly to the administering federal agency. He also counsels clients on federal, state, and local procurement compliance, guiding clients through the...

Charles R. Lucy, Federal Regulatory Litigator, Holland Hart, law firm
Of Counsel

Mr. Lucy brings more than 30 years of experience in federal regulatory, business, and litigation experience, as well as technical experience in federal/state procurement and acquisition matters, bid protests, contract disputes act appeals, government contract audits and fiscal law issues, commercial space law, university/government technology transfer programs, homeland defense, and small business government contracting.

Mr. Lucy has lectured at numerous conferences and seminars in Europe, the Pacific, and the United States. Topics have included “Shutter Control,” at the U.S. Space Foundation International Space Symposium; “Commercial Space Law,” at the U.S. Air Force Academy; “Technology Transfer and Higher Education,” at Boulder, Denver and Salt Lake City; and “Government and Public-Private Partnering,” at the DefenseExec Technology and Homeland Security Summit; “Public Contracts and Procurement Regulations in Colorado” at Denver and Colorado Springs, and numerous presentations at the Southern Colorado Government Contract Forum, as well as private client presentations.

Michael O'Leary, White Collar Defense Attorney, Holland Hart Law FIrm
Of Counsel

Mr. O'Leary is Of Counsel in the Washington D.C. office where he focuses his practice on white collar defense, internal investigations and compliance matters, and complex civil litigation. He has represented companies, individuals, and financial institutions in connection with investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and other domestic and foreign regulatory and criminal authorities. Mr. O'Leary has...