958 F. Supp. 2d 53
D.D.C.2013Background
- SAIC and government dispute over SAIC’s organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) under NRC contracts from 1992 and 1999.
- Jury found SAIC liable on FCA counts and breach of contract; on appeal, D.C. Circuit vacated FCA liability and damages and remanded; district court on remand denied summary judgment motions regarding FCA knowledge, falsity, and damages due to material factual disputes.
- SAIC promised not to engage in OCI-related relationships and to disclose any OCIs; NRC contracts defined OCIs via 41 C.F.R. § 20-1.5402(a) and required OCI disclosures throughout the contract period.
- Government alleges five potential OCIs (BNFL, Bechtel Jacobs, Alaron, ARMR involvement through Motl, and PHP development) created conflicts or biased work, and that SAIC failed to disclose them.
- Key issue is whether SAIC employees knew of OCIs and whether those OCIs were material to NRC payments, under an implied-certification theory; materiality and scienter remain contested facts.
- Conclusion on remand is that there are genuine disputes of material fact requiring denial of SAIC’s and government’s partial summary-judgment requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAIC’s FCA liability is negated by lack of evidence of scienter | Government argues record shows employees knew conflicts existed and were material | SAIC argues no single employee proves both noncompliance and materiality | Genuine disputes remain; summary judgment denied |
| Whether SAIC’s alleged falsity rests on implied certification | Implied certification failure to disclose OCIs makes claims false | No disclosure did not prove materiality; possible nonmaterial noncompliance | Materiality issues remain fact-based; no summary judgment on falsity |
| Whether single-actor knowledge requirement applies or collective-knowledge rule controls | SAIC contends single employee knowledge not required; government cites circuit | D.C. Circuit requires the same employee know both noncompliance and materiality | Law-of-the-case favors same-employee knowledge standard; disputes on application persist |
| Whether damages under FCA equal breach damages for the 1992 contract | Damages under FCA identical to contract damages per SAIC III | Damages separate issue; not bound by law-of-the-case conclusion | Not precluded; genuine disputes over value of services and applicability of damages rule exist |
| Whether FCA damages for the 1999 contract are provable given evidence of no-cost settlement | Damages measured by value of services and avoidance costs; settlement not determinative | Settlement suggests value; but may not reflect true value; issues remain | Damages issues disputed; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Barrett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 251 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2003) (implied certification theory and falsity)
- SAIC v. United States (SAIC III), 626 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (implied certification; materiality; scienter standard; law-of-the-case guidance)
- SAIC v. United States (SAIC II), 653 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2009) (initial FCA liability, recklessness/constructive knowledge discussion)