False Claims Act Qui Tam and Whistleblower Litigation for Federal Contractors in Virginia and Maryland: A Northern Virginia Attorney’s Guide

By Anthony I. Shin, Esq., Shin Law Office

1. Why the FCA Is the Most Important Statute in Federal Contracting

The False Claims Act is the federal government’s most powerful civil tool for fighting fraud, and federal contractors are its most frequent targets. The DOJ Civil Division reported more than $2.68 billion in FCA settlements and judgments in fiscal year 2023, the second highest year on record. Most of that came from qui tam cases initiated by private workers under 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(b). The trend has held steady for years, with annual recoveries consistently in the multi-billion-dollar range. Federal contractors operating in the DMV are heavily represented in those numbers because the DMV is where the contracts get signed and the work gets performed.

The reason the FCA works the way it does is the qui tam provision. Originally enacted during the Civil War to combat fraud by Union Army contractors, the FCA gives private citizens the right to bring fraud cases on behalf of the United States. The relator (the technical term for the private plaintiff) files a complaint under seal in federal district court, serves the DOJ with a written disclosure of the evidence, and then waits while the government investigates. If the case succeeds, the relator collects 15 to 25 percent of the recovery when the government intervenes, or 25 to 30 percent when the government declines and the relator prosecutes the case alone. The numbers in successful cases can be very large.

The same statute, in Section 3730(h), protects relators and other contractor employees from retaliation. If you investigate fraud, report it internally, refuse to participate in it, cooperate with a federal investigation, or file a qui tam complaint, your employer cannot lawfully retaliate against you. Remedies include reinstatement, double back pay with interest, special damages including emotional distress in most circuits, and attorney fees. The statute of limitations is three years.

Why does this matter so much in the DMV specifically? Because the cleared federal contracting workforce concentrated in Tysons, McLean, Reston, Herndon, Falls Church, Crystal City, Pentagon City, Rosslyn, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun, Manassas, Bethesda, Rockville, Silver Spring, Columbia, and Fort Meade is the workforce that sees the fraud first. The engineer who notices the labor mischarging. The program manager who watches the defective pricing get submitted. The cybersecurity professional who knows the NIST 800-171 controls were never implemented despite the certification. The financial analyst who sees the cost transfers between contracts. The intelligence community contractor who watches the small-business set-aside fraud unfold. The DMV federal contracting workforce sits at the source of most successful qui tam cases.

2. What Counts as a False Claim Under 31 U.S.C. Section 3729

The False Claims Act imposes liability on any person who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly causes a false claim to be presented. Section 3729 lays out the substantive liability provisions, and the definitions in Section 3729(b) drive most of the disputes.

The seven theories of liability. Section 3729(a)(1) creates liability for someone who: (A) knowingly presents a false or fraudulent claim, (B) knowingly makes a false record or statement material to a false claim, (C) conspires to commit a violation, (D) has possession of government property and knowingly delivers less than the full amount, (E) is authorized to deliver a document certifying receipt of property and makes a false certification, (F) knowingly buys government property from someone unauthorized to sell, or (G) knowingly makes a false statement to avoid an obligation to pay the government (reverse false claims). Most federal contracting cases run on (A), (B), and (G).

The knowledge requirement. Section 3729(b)(1) defines “knowing” to include actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. The contractor does not have to know the claim is false; closing your eyes to the truth or being reckless about it is enough. United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. 739 (2023), clarified that the scienter analysis turns on what the contractor subjectively believed when the claim was submitted, not on what an objectively reasonable person might have believed. This was a significant Supreme Court decision that strengthened FCA enforcement.

The materiality requirement. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016), established that materiality is required and that the test is whether the misstatement was material to the government’s payment decision. Materiality looks at whether the government would have refused to pay if it knew the truth, whether the government has continued to pay similar claims with full knowledge, and other factors. The Fourth Circuit (which covers EDVA and the District of Maryland) consistently applies the Escobar framework. Materiality fights are a regular feature of federal contractor FCA cases.

Implied false certification. Escobar also confirmed that an FCA claim can be based on implied false certification. When a contractor submits a claim, it implicitly represents compliance with material contract, statutory, or regulatory requirements. If the contractor was not actually in compliance and that non-compliance was material, the claim can be false even without an express misstatement. This theory drives a lot of cybersecurity compliance fraud cases, where the contractor submits invoices while not actually meeting DFARS 252.204-7012 or NIST 800-171 requirements.

Damages and penalties. Section 3729(a)(1) provides treble damages plus a per-claim civil penalty (currently around $13,500 to $27,000 per claim, adjusted annually for inflation). When there are many invoices on a contract, penalties can stack quickly. Per-claim penalty stacking is one reason FCA cases produce such large recoveries even when the underlying damages are modest.

3. The Qui Tam Relator Process: Filing, Seal, and Recovery

The qui tam relator provision in 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(b) lets a private person file an FCA complaint on behalf of the United States. The procedure has specific steps that distinguish it from ordinary civil litigation.

Filing under seal. The complaint is filed in federal district court under seal, meaning the docket is sealed and the defendant is not served immediately. The relator simultaneously serves a written disclosure on the DOJ and the relevant United States Attorney. The disclosure must contain substantially all material evidence and information the relator possesses. The initial seal period is 60 days, but routinely gets extended to one or two years, sometimes longer, while the DOJ investigates.

The DOJ investigation. During the seal period, the Civil Division of the DOJ (working with the relevant US Attorney’s office and any relevant agency Inspector General) investigates the allegations. Investigation can include grand jury subpoenas, document requests to the defendant, witness interviews, and coordination with criminal authorities if criminal exposure exists. The relator typically meets with the DOJ team multiple times during this period to provide additional information and answer questions.

The intervention decision. At the end of the seal period (or after seal extensions), the DOJ must decide whether to intervene in the case or decline. An intervention means the government takes over primary responsibility for the case, with the relator remaining a party. Declination means the relator can either pursue the case independently or voluntarily dismiss it. The intervention rate has historically been around 20 to 25 percent of qui tam cases, though it varies by fraud type and DOJ priorities.

Relator share. Section 3730(d) sets the relator’s share of any recovery. If the government intervenes and the case is successful, the relator receives 15 to 25 percent of the proceeds, plus attorney’s fees and costs. If the government declines and the relator proceeds alone, the relator receives 25 to 30 percent, plus fees. The specific percentage within those ranges depends on the relator’s contribution to the case. Larger contributions get higher shares.

Reverse false claims. The same procedure applies to reverse false claims (false statements made to avoid an obligation to pay the government). Reverse false claims often involve avoidance of contractual repayment obligations, fees, royalties, or penalties.

EDVA and District of Maryland practice. Both federal districts see substantial qui tam activity. EDVA’s Alexandria Division handles many DMV federal contractor cases. The District of Maryland in Greenbelt and Baltimore handles cases against contractors operating in the Maryland federal economy. Both courts have judges with deep experience in FCA litigation. EDVA’s rocket docket creates pressure to move cases quickly once they unseal.

4. First-to-File, Public Disclosure Bar, and Original Source

Three procedural doctrines decide whether a qui tam case can proceed even when the underlying fraud is real. Each doctrine is technical, fact-specific, and frequently litigated in the Fourth Circuit.

The first-to-file rule. Section 3730(b)(5) bars qui tam complaints based on facts already alleged in another pending qui tam action. Only the first relator to file on a given fraud can proceed. The Fourth Circuit applies the rule under standards developed in United States ex rel. Owens v. First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co., 612 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010), and related cases. The rule has practical consequences. If you suspect fraud and are considering a qui tam complaint, the timing question is real. Another relator may already have filed under seal on the same conduct. The seal makes this invisible to you. This is one of several reasons to engage counsel quickly when you are considering qui tam action.

The public disclosure bar. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) bars qui tam actions based on information that has been publicly disclosed in federal hearings, government reports, audits, investigations, or news media, unless the relator is an original source. The 2010 amendments narrowed the bar significantly, but it remains a frequently litigated defense. The Fourth Circuit’s approach to what counts as a public disclosure has evolved through cases like United States ex rel. Wilson v. Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District.

The original source exception. Section 3730(e)(4)(B) preserves qui tam jurisdiction when the relator is an original source. The 2010 amendments redefined original source as either (i) someone who voluntarily disclosed the information to the government before filing the qui tam complaint and before the public disclosure, or (ii) someone with knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations. The materially-adds prong has been important in cases where some information was already public but the relator brought new and significant additional information.

Practical implications. These three doctrines together mean that the strength of your underlying fraud allegations is only part of the analysis. You also need to confirm (i) that no prior qui tam has been filed on the same conduct, (ii) that the conduct has not been publicly disclosed in a way that would trigger the bar, and (iii) that if some disclosure has occurred, you qualify as an original source. The first two questions require an investigation that you cannot do alone because of the seal. Counsel familiar with FCA litigation can run searches and analyses that help assess these issues before filing.

5. Section 3730(h) Anti-Retaliation Protection

If you are an employee, contractor, or agent who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against in your employment because of lawful acts done in furtherance of an FCA action or investigation, 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(h) gives you a federal cause of action with significant remedies. This is the second major use of the FCA: not just suing for the government, but suing for yourself when you are punished for trying to stop fraud.

Protected conduct. The statutory text covers “lawful acts done by the employee in furtherance of an action under this section or other efforts to stop one or more violations of this subchapter.” The Fourth Circuit has read this broadly. Internal complaints to supervisors or compliance officers count. Refusing to participate in fraudulent conduct counts. Cooperating with a DOJ or IG investigation counts. Filing a qui tam complaint counts. Investigating fraud, even without yet making a formal complaint, counts. The protected conduct does not have to actually lead to an FCA action to be protected. Eberhardt v. Integrated Design and Construction, Inc., 167 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 1999), established the foundational standard.

Causation. The worker must show the employer’s adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by the protected conduct. The traditional standard is “because of,” with the worker bearing the burden of proving causal connection. The Fourth Circuit applies but-for-style and contributing-factor analyses depending on the case posture. Direct evidence of retaliatory animus is rare; most cases rest on circumstantial evidence: temporal proximity between protected conduct and adverse action, deviation from normal disciplinary practice, shifting explanations from the employer, and pattern of similar conduct against other reporters.

Remedies. Section 3730(h)(2) provides reinstatement to the position the worker would have held without the discrimination, double back pay with interest, compensation for any special damages sustained, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. Double back pay is automatic upon a liability finding. Special damages can include emotional distress in most circuits, including the Fourth Circuit, although the law on emotional damages varies by case. Front pay is sometimes awarded in lieu of reinstatement when the relationship has broken down beyond repair.

Statute of limitations. Section 3730(h)(3) sets a three-year statute of limitations running from the date of the retaliatory act. Earlier acts contributing to a continuing violation may still be actionable under the continuing-violation theory.

Coverage. Section 3730(h) covers employees, contractors, and agents. The Fourth Circuit and other circuits have held that the statute covers more than direct employees; it also reaches consultants, contractors, and agents who are retaliated against in the terms or conditions of their engagement with the employer.

The standalone retaliation claim. Section 3730(h) creates a standalone retaliation claim that is independent of whether any qui tam case is filed. A worker who reports fraud internally, gets fired in retaliation, and never files a qui tam can still bring a Section 3730(h) action. This is the most common version of FCA litigation I see in my practice. The qui tam decision is consequential; the retaliation claim alone is often the cleaner path for workers who want protection without becoming a relator.

6. Common Fraud Patterns I See in the DMV

After years of doing this work in EDVA and the District of Maryland, the same patterns come up over and over. Knowing what fraud looks like in federal contracting helps workers recognize what they are seeing, and helps me assess whether a case is viable.

Labor mischarging. Contractor employees report time to the wrong contract line item, often at the direction of supervisors. Commonly, when the contractor has multiple contracts at different rates or with different funding sources, and uses labor charging to manage profit and cash flow at the customer’s expense. Time card patterns, project management records, and email exchanges discussing charging decisions are the typical evidence. Cases against IT contractors, professional services firms, and integrators are common.

Defective pricing. Under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA, now Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act, 10 U.S.C. Section 3702), contractors negotiating contracts over the TINA threshold (currently $2 million for most cases) must submit cost or pricing data that is current, accurate, and complete. Submitting data that is not, or failing to update during negotiations when material changes occur, creates FCA exposure. Defective pricing cases require careful proposal-by-proposal analysis. Common in major weapons systems, IT services, and construction contracts.

Knowingly delivering non-conforming products. Contractor delivers products or services that do not meet contract specifications. The classic example is the engineer who knows the testing data was falsified or the product does not meet specifications, but ships anyway because of schedule pressure. Common in defense manufacturing, IT systems integration, and product delivery contracts.

False cybersecurity certifications. Contractor certifies compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012, NIST 800-171, or CMMC requirements when the controls are not actually implemented. This is the fastest-growing FCA enforcement area. The DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, launched in October 2021, treats false cybersecurity certifications as actionable FCA fraud. Major settlements have followed.

False small business size or status certifications. Contractor certifies eligibility for an 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB, or other set-aside program when the eligibility criteria are not actually met. Common patterns include affiliation exceeding size standards, unreported changes in ownership, or misrepresentation of socioeconomic status. Set-aside fraud cases have been a growing area of FCA enforcement.

Kickbacks and the Anti-Kickback Act. 41 U.S.C. Section 8702 prohibits kickbacks in federal contracting. Kickback violations also typically violate the FCA when the contractor submits claims that are tainted by the kickback. Common patterns include sub-to-prime kickbacks, vendor-to-employee kickbacks, and consulting arrangements that disguise kickbacks.

Reverse false claims and unallowable costs. Section 3729(a)(1)(G) creates reverse false claim liability when a contractor knowingly avoids an obligation to pay the government, including by charging unallowable costs to government contracts. The Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and FAR Part 31 cost principles define what is allowable. Charging entertainment, lobbying, fines, or other unallowable costs to government contracts creates FCA exposure.

7. The Cyber-Fraud Initiative and CMMC/DFARS False Certifications

In October 2021, the DOJ launched the Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, treating false cybersecurity certifications by federal contractors as actionable FCA fraud. The initiative has produced major settlements and has become the fastest-growing FCA enforcement area in federal contracting. For DMV federal contractors handling Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), this is the most important development in FCA practice in the last several years.

The substantive framework. Federal contractors handling CUI are required to implement NIST Special Publication 800-171, a 110-control framework covering access control, audit, configuration management, identification and authentication, incident response, media protection, personnel security, physical protection, risk assessment, system communications protection, system and information integrity, and other security families. Defense contracts incorporate these requirements through DFARS 252.204-7012, which also requires 72-hour reporting of cyber incidents to the DOD. The CMMC 2.0 program (32 C.F.R. Part 170) is moving toward third-party assessment of NIST 800-171 implementation for contracts involving CUI.

The FCA theory. When a contractor certifies compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012, NIST 800-171, or CMMC requirements as part of contract performance, and the controls are not actually implemented, the certification can be a false statement supporting an FCA claim. The theory works on both express false certification (certifying compliance when not in compliance) and implied false certification (submitting invoices while operating in violation of material contract requirements). Escobar’s materiality framework applies.

Key settlements. Aerojet Rocketdyne settled cybersecurity FCA allegations for $9 million in July 2022 in a case that began as a qui tam by a former employee. Verizon settled for $4.1 million in September 2023 for cybersecurity issues on a contract with the General Services Administration. Penn State University settled for $1.25 million in October 2024 for cybersecurity compliance issues on DOD and NASA contracts. These settlements have set the pace for what cyber-fraud FCA exposure looks like.

Why cyber-fraud cases are growing. Several factors. (1) The implementation framework (NIST 800-171, CMMC 2.0) creates clear and auditable compliance obligations. (2) Cyber incidents create observable evidence of compliance gaps, often years after the certifications. (3) The 72-hour reporting requirement under DFARS 7012 creates a documentary trail of incidents that supports later FCA theories. (4) Insider information is often available because cybersecurity teams at federal contractors are small and the compliance status is widely known internally. (5) DOJ priorities have strongly favored these cases since 2021.

Implications for relator candidates. Cybersecurity professionals at federal contractors who have direct knowledge of false certification of NIST 800-171 or DFARS 7012 compliance are in a strong relator position. The technical detail required to plead these cases is significant. The evidentiary base often exists in compliance documentation, vendor security assessments, and incident response records. Cases require careful pre-filing preparation but can be strong when supported by good evidence.

8. Escobar, Cochise, and SuperValu: The Recent Supreme Court Landscape

Three Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have shaped federal contractor FCA litigation. Each affects how cases look in the EDVA and the District of Maryland.

Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016). Escobar confirmed that implied false certification can serve as an FCA theory and established the materiality framework. Materiality is required, but it is not satisfied by mere regulatory violation. The test is whether the misrepresentation was likely to have affected the government’s payment decision. The framework asks whether the government has continued to pay similar claims with full knowledge of the non-compliance (which suggests not material), whether the requirement was an express condition of payment (which suggests material), whether non-compliance was minor or insubstantial, and other factors. Escobar materiality fights are routine in federal contractor FCA cases.

Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, 587 U.S. 262 (2019). Cochise resolved a circuit split on the statute of limitations for qui tam actions. The FCA has two relevant limitations periods: a six-year period running from the violation under Section 3731(b)(1), and a three-year period running from when the government official knew or should have known of the facts material to the cause of action under Section 3731(b)(2), with a ten-year outer limit. Cochise held that relators can use both limitations periods, even when the government does not intervene. The decision expanded the practical statute of limitations for many cases.

United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. 739 (2023). SuperValu addressed the scienter requirement under the FCA’s “knowing” standard. The Court rejected the position that an objectively reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation could, as a matter of law, defeat scienter. Instead, scienter turns on what the contractor subjectively believed at the time the claim was submitted. A contractor that knew or recklessly disregarded that its interpretation was wrong can be liable even if the interpretation was objectively reasonable. SuperValu was a significant pro-enforcement decision.

Fourth Circuit application. The Fourth Circuit covers EDVA and the District of Maryland. Fourth Circuit decisions applying Escobar, Cochise, and SuperValu shape the case law in our region. Recent Fourth Circuit decisions have applied the materiality standard narrowly in some cases (United States ex rel. Komla Aryee v. Holy Cross Hospital and similar cases) and expansively in others (cases involving more egregious noncompliance and clearer materiality). The Fourth Circuit pattern is fact-specific within the Escobar framework.

9. Internal Report, External Report, or Qui Tam: Three Real Options

If you have seen fraud at your contractor, you face one of the harder decisions of your career. Three real options exist, and the right choice depends on the specific facts of your situation. Let me walk through each.

Option 1: Internal reporting. Report through your contractor’s compliance program (compliance hotline, ethics officer, general counsel, or internal investigation procedures). The compliance program is supposed to investigate and remediate. Pros: keeps the relationship intact, allows the contractor to self-correct, may resolve the issue without external disclosure, and counts as protected activity under Section 3730(h) for retaliation purposes. Cons: the contractor may not investigate fairly, may retaliate informally, may use internal counsel to build a defense rather than fix the problem, and the worker has limited visibility into the outcome. Compliance programs at the largest contractors are often run professionally; at smaller contractors, they may not be.

Option 2: External report to the agency IG or DOJ without filing a qui tam. Report to the relevant agency Inspector General (DOD IG, GSA IG, agency IG of choice) or to the DOJ Civil Division. The government investigates without a qui tam complaint pending. Pros: triggers Section 3730(h) protection against retaliation, brings the issue to the government without the qui tam relator commitment, and may result in government enforcement action even without a qui tam. Cons: no relator share of any recovery (the government keeps everything), no control over how the case is pursued, and the public disclosure may eventually bar a later qui tam if you change your mind.

Option 3: File a qui tam complaint as a relator. File a sealed complaint in federal district court with disclosure to the DOJ. Pros: 15 to 30 percent of any recovery, Section 3730(h) protection, status as the original source, and ability to drive the case forward even if the government declines. Cons: the most consequential career decision a contractor employee can make. The seal period is long. The litigation takes years. The professional consequences are real even with retaliation protection. The first-to-file and public disclosure bars may apply. Counsel is essentially required because of the technical procedure.

How I help workers decide. The conversation I have with relator candidates before filing usually takes several hours. We work through the strength of the evidence, the materiality analysis under Escobar, the scienter analysis under SuperValu, the size of the potential recovery, the first-to-file risk (which I cannot assess perfectly because of the seal), the public disclosure bar, the worker’s professional and financial circumstances, the worker’s relationship with the contractor, and the worker’s tolerance for a multi-year litigation process. The decision is reversible only in the limited sense that the worker can voluntarily dismiss a qui tam before unsealing. Filing the complaint changes the worker’s status permanently in ways that matter to the rest of their career.

10. How I Help Federal Contractor Whistleblowers Across Virginia and Maryland

When a federal contractor employee calls me about a potential whistleblower or qui tam case, my first questions are about confidentiality, evidence, and timing. Who else have you talked to about this? What documents do you have access to? What is the timeline of the conduct? Are you still employed by the contractor? Are you in a position to gather additional evidence safely? Each answer shapes the next conversation.

From there, the work moves through structured phases.

Phase 1: Confidential intake. The first consultation is protected by the attorney-client privilege. I want to hear the full story before making any strategic recommendations. The conversation usually lasts 1 to 2 hours. I do not commit to representation in the first meeting; I want to understand the case before either of us makes a commitment.

Phase 2: Evidence assessment. What documents do you have access to without violating any agreements or laws? Trade secret protection (18 U.S.C. Section 1833 has a whistleblower immunity provision), HIPAA, classified information rules, and contractor confidentiality agreements each affect what can be gathered. Building the evidence base safely is a structured process. I do not advise workers to take documents they should not take. I do help them understand what they can legally take and what the law allows.

Phase 3: Pre-filing analysis. Materiality under Escobar. Scienter under SuperValu. Damages estimate. First-to-file risk assessment. Public disclosure bar analysis. Original source qualification. Statute of limitations under Cochise. Each of these gets worked through in detail before any complaint is drafted. The pre-filing analysis is what distinguishes a qui tam that the DOJ takes seriously from one they decline.

Phase 4: Strategic recommendation. Based on the analysis, I make a recommendation about the three options (internal, external IG, qui tam). The recommendation is fact-specific. In my experience, workers who follow the recommendation have better outcomes than those who do not.

Phase 5: Filing or non-filing implementation. If the recommendation is qui tam filing, the complaint and disclosure statement get drafted. The filing is made in EDVA, the District of Maryland, or another appropriate federal district. The seal period begins. If the recommendation is external IG report, the report gets prepared and submitted. If the recommendation is internal reporting, the worker is supported through that process.

Phase 6: Government investigation phase (qui tam cases). Coordinate with the DOJ and the relevant US Attorney’s office during the seal period. Multiple meetings with the DOJ team to provide additional information. Document review. Witness interviews coordinated through DOJ.

Phase 7: Post-seal litigation or settlement. If the government intervenes, support the government’s prosecution as a party. If the government declines, evaluate whether to proceed independently. Settlement negotiations. If trial, preparation through trial.

Section 3730(h) retaliation track. Many cases involve a parallel Section 3730(h) retaliation claim if the contractor took adverse action against the worker. The retaliation claim has its own timeline, its own evidence, and its own settlement potential. Sometimes the retaliation claim resolves before the qui tam case. Sometimes it resolves together.

Geographic reach. I represent federal contractor workers throughout Virginia (Fairfax, Loudoun, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William, Stafford, Spotsylvania, Norfolk, Newport News, Virginia Beach, Richmond) and Maryland (Montgomery, Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Charles, St. Mary’s, Frederick). Both EDVA and the District of Maryland are in my regular practice. I work with cleared and uncleared workers across the cleared community.

Summary

The False Claims Act is the most important federal whistleblower statute in federal contracting and one of the most important civil enforcement tools in the federal government. The DOJ recovers billions every year, mostly through qui tam cases initiated by private workers. Section 3730(b) lets a relator file under seal, with the DOJ investigating before deciding whether to intervene. Successful cases produce relator shares of 15 to 25 percent if the government intervenes, or 25 to 30 percent if the government declines and the relator proceeds. Section 3730(h) protects relators and other workers from retaliation, with reinstatement, double back pay, special damages, and attorney fees as remedies.

The substantive framework comes from Section 3729’s seven liability theories, the knowledge standard under Section 3729(b)(1), and the materiality requirement reinforced by Universal Health Services v. Escobar (2016). The qui tam procedural doctrines (first-to-file under Section 3730(b)(5), public disclosure bar under Section 3730(e)(4)(A), and original source under Section 3730(e)(4)(B)) decide whether your case can proceed. Schutte v. SuperValu (2023) strengthened the scienter framework. Cochise v. Hunt (2019) expanded the statute of limitations for relators.

Common federal contractor fraud patterns in the DMV include labor mischarging, defective pricing, false cybersecurity certifications under DFARS 252.204-7012 and NIST 800-171, false small business size or status certifications, kickbacks, and unallowable costs. The DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative has made false cybersecurity certifications the fastest-growing FCA enforcement area, with settlements from Aerojet Rocketdyne, Verizon, and Penn State setting the pace.

The decision between internal reporting, external IG report without qui tam, and qui tam filing is one of the most consequential professional decisions a contractor employee can make. Each path has trade-offs. The conversation about which fits your situation is what the first consultation is for. Filing a qui tam is the right answer for some workers in some cases, not for all workers in all cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

Anthony I. Shin, Esq.

PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY

Practice Areas
Meet Our Team
Shin Law Office, PLC
Leesburg, VA

 

Related Guides

References