United States Ex Rel. Wall v. Circle C Construction, L.L.C.
697 F.3d 345
6th Cir.2012Background
- Circle C signed a Fort Campbell contract incorporating Davis-Bacon Act wage requirements and set a base wage of $19.19 plus $3.94 fringe for electricians.
- Phase Tech, Circle C’s subcontractor, performed the majority of electrical work on the project but Circle C failed to list Phase Tech employees on initial certified payrolls.
- Phase Tech employees were not properly certified; Circle C did not supervise Phase Tech’s payments and did not verify Phase Tech’s payroll certifications.
- DOL investigator found 62 inaccurate payroll certifications, with 53 pertaining to 2004–2005 and most omitting Phase Tech workers and misstating wages.
- The government paid Circle C $565,109.91 for electrical work; Phase Tech should have been paid, with estimated underpayment totaling about $553,807.71.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on liability and trebled damages to $1,661,423.13; Circle C appealed seeking dismissal or recalculation of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCA claim elements were proven | Wall established falsity, knowledge, and materiality. | Circle C challenged sufficiency and precision of pleadings under Rule 9(b). | FCA liability proven; falsity, knowledge, and materiality established. |
| Whether primary jurisdiction applied to a Davis-Bacon/FCA claim | No need for DOL deferral; issue is false certification, not wage classification. | DOL should resolve Davis-Bacon wage issues before FCA damages. | Primary jurisdiction not applicable; district court properly declined to refer. |
| Whether summary judgment on liability was proper | Express false certifications and misrepresentation support FCA liability. | Insufficient evidence of falsity and intent to defraud. | Summary judgment for plaintiffs on FCA liability affirmed. |
| Whether the damages award was properly calculated | Damages equal the difference between paid and properly paid wages, trebled per FCA. | Damages calculation based on speculative and incorrect data; includes non-Kentucky deliveries. | Damages reversed and remanded for recalculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Circle Constr., LLC, 700 F. Supp. 2d 926 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) (district court decision under FCA and Davis-Bacon Act)
- SNAPP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 618 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard for FCA scienter and materiality)
- DynCorp Int'l, LLC v. United States, 895 F. Supp. 844 (E.D. Va. 1995) (Davis-Bacon misclassification vs. FCA liability; agency deferral guidance)
- Foundation for Fair Contracting, Ltd. v. G&M Eastern Contracting & Double E, LLC, 259 F. Supp. 2d 329 (D.N.J. 2003) (FC A jurisdictional deferral considerations in Davis-Bacon context)
- G.E. Chen Constr., Inc. v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 197 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (limitations of agency deferral regarding misclassification vs. false certifications)
- Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 601 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010) (false reports and FCA liability; contractor responsibility)