U.S. ex rel. Robert Searle v. DRS C3 & Aviation Company
680 F. App'x 163
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- TACOM awarded a Base Contract and Task Order 10 to DRS Technical Services, Inc.; novation assignments transferred Task Order 10 to DRS C3 and then to The Tolliver Group, Inc. (TTGI).
- Task Order 10 required delivery of three Technical Manuals that complied with the Performance Work Statement (PWS); the government could not obtain the full Technical Data Package from the OEM, updated the PWS, and directed the contractor to use commercial off-the-shelf source data.
- Searle (relator) sued under the False Claims Act, alleging defendants certified compliance with the PWS while delivering manuals lacking the Technical Data Package and containing deviations (e.g., references to an unavailable gasket and gloves).
- Defendants submitted declarations by the government COR (Travis Christner) and TTGI program manager (Mark Miller) stating: required certifications were limited, invoices did not certify PWS compliance, the government reviewed/approved manual changes, and the alleged procurement inaccuracies were notified and corrected.
- District court denied Searle’s motions to strike the declarations (finding Touhy procedures followed and declarations admissible) and granted summary judgment for defendants because Christner’s uncontroverted declaration foreclosed any false-statement or conspiracy claim under the FCA.
- Relator appealed; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion and summary judgment was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of government and contractor declarations | Declarations should be stricken as improperly obtained or inadmissible | Declarations complied with Touhy/regulations and Rule 56(c)(4); are admissible | District court did not abuse discretion; declarations admissible |
| Whether defendants made false certifications (express certification theory) | Defendants certified manuals complied with PWS despite missing Technical Data Package and deviations | Required certifications were limited; invoices did not certify PWS compliance; government accepted deliverables | No false-statement established; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether defendants impliedly certified compliance (implied certification theory) | Delivery of manuals implied certification of PWS compliance | Payments and acceptance did not depend on content; government-directed edits and acceptance negate implied certification | Implied-certification theory fails as a matter of law |
| Conspiracy to defraud the government under the FCA | Novation and coordination among entities amounted to a conspiracy to submit false claims | No evidence of agreement to submit false claims; government acceptance and corrections negate scheme | No evidence of conspiracy; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) (authority for agency procedures governing release of official departmental information)
- FDIC v. Cashion, 720 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard reviewing denial of motion to strike evidence is abuse of discretion)
- Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- U.S. ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 352 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 2003) (elements required to prove FCA violation by false statement or fraudulent course of conduct)