Late last week, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on summary judgment of a relator's FCA claims in U.S. ex rel. Folliard v. Government Acquisitions, Inc. & Govplace. Although the court provided an extensive discussion of several evidentiary rulings that led to the dismissal of much of the case, its ruling with respect to the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) certifications received from suppliers is significant to contractors. The court held that, in providing country of origin information to the Government under the TAA, the contractor reasonably based its representations on certifications it received from a supplier. Accordingly, the district court had properly granted summary judgment with respect to an FCA claim based on purportedly defective certifications. To the extent a Government contractor is reselling products in reliance on a supplier's TAA certification—and there is a reasonable basis to accept the certification—the Govplace decision should prove helpful to contractors.

Federal contractors selling commercial products to the Government on the GSA Schedules (or other procurement vehicles) are facing increasing FCA claims based on purported TAA non-compliance and certification issues. Tracking the origin of each and every component in a product (particularly an electronics product) in the age of globalization can be difficult for a manufacturer selling its own products to the Government. The problems are more substantial for resellers, which cannot know the origin of every component of products they don't manufacture—and must rely on information obtained from entities within a supply chain.

The contractor Govplace isn't a manufacturer of the products it sells to the Government. As relevant to the lawsuit, Govplace sold Hewlett Packard (HP) products it acquired from a large technology products distributor, Ingram Micro, under the distributor's "GSA Pass Through Program." That program "helps resellers maintain their GSA contracts by regularly passing through manufacturer-certified information," and for HP, Govplace received certifications that the "[p]roducts offered by the manufacturer are compliant with the Trade Agreements Act."

The contractor wasn't the only entity that believed reliance on its distributor's certifications was sufficient for compliance with the TAA. GSA conducted numerous "Contractor Administrative Visits" during the years preceding the FCA lawsuit, and after Govplace's reliance on the country of origin certifications was explained, GSA repeatedly issued "Report Cards" finding "that Govplace demonstrated compliance with the TAA." Those findings made perfect sense; Govplace is a downstream reseller and presumably had no realistic way to make additional demands on HP.

To succeed with an FCA claim, a relator (or DOJ) must show that a contractor "knowingly" submitted false claims, and because "actual knowledge" was not alleged in this case, the relator had to provide evidence of Govplace's "deliberate ignorance" or "reckless disregard" of the allegedly false certifications. But it was clear that Govplace obtained its HP products from Ingram Micro, which the court described as the "largest technology products distributor," and that Ingram Micro "expressly certifies to resellers . . . that [country of origin] information is accurate, and more generally that the products it distributes comply with the TAA." The court's opinion also relied on GSA's repeated acceptance of the Ingram Micro certifications during its contractor visits. In sum, the court explained that "a contractor like Govplace is ordinarily entitled to rely on a supplier's certification that the product meets TAA requirements." Barring significant red flags with respect to the certifications' validity—which the Govplace relator was unable to find in the discovery that it was allowed—that is surely the correct conclusion.

Making TAA certifications is increasingly serious business for contractors selling electronics (and other types of) products to the Government. The Govplace decision is helpful in providing some clarity for contractors regarding FCA claims they may face based on sales made under the GSA Schedule program.

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.