Photo of Richard Arnholt

Richard Arnholt

Richard Arnholt advises companies, large and small, on the complex rules and regulations applicable to grants and contracts from federal and state governmental entities. In an era of increased budgetary pressures for contractors, Richard focuses his practice on providing practical business and legal guidance to help clients efficiently navigate the minefield of government procurement and grant regulations.

Follow:Read more about Richard ArnholtRichard's Linkedin Profile

Following the federal government’s example, states are increasingly looking to their own false claims act (“FCA”) statutes to combat procurement and healthcare fraud. This trend is being driven by two main factors: (1) the huge recoveries by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under the federal FCA – $5.7 billion in Fiscal Year 2014 alone; and (2) a federal statute that provided a financial incentive for states to mirror their own FCAs on the federal FCA with regard to healthcare fraud. This state-level activity represents a new front in the battle against procurement fraud, one that government contractors must be aware of to fully analyze and mitigate risks when contracting with state entities.

Currently, 33 states and the District of Columbia have a false claims statute. Of these, 11 states have FCAs that are limited to healthcare fraud; the remaining statutes penalize a broad range of false claims. Many – but not all – of these state FCAs have provisions allowing for whistleblowers to file qui tam actions on behalf of the state government and to share in any recovery.Continue Reading A New Front in the Battle Against Fraud – the Continued Expansion of State False Claims Act Liability

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision, International Business Machines Corporation, B-410639, et al., Jan. 15, 2015, highlights the need for contractors to ensure that both they and their subcontractors are free of or can sufficiently mitigate any organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).

On January 15, 2015, the GAO denied IBM’s bid protest over an award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract to upgrade a Department of Defense payroll system.  IBM protested its elimination from the competition because key personnel from its proposed subcontractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, were involved in developing the statement of work, solicitation and other key acquisition documents and strategies, resulting in a “biased ground rules” OCI.Continue Reading Beware of Your Subcontractor’s Organizational Conflicts of Interest

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.