Photo of Marcia Madsen

Marcia focuses on Government Contracts and Litigation, advising clients on contract formation, teaming and strategic alliances, contract and subcontract negotiations, performance disputes, audits, terminations, cost accounting and allowability, technical data rights and trade secrets, and fraud/false claims investigations • litigates bid protests and claims and disputes before the GAO, the Boards of Contract Appeals, the Court of Federal Claims, and various other federal and state courts • has handled numerous ADR and mediation proceedings • areas of concentration include aerospace and defense contracts, systems integration, information systems and telecommunications contracts, health care and bio-technology, homeland security contracts, environmental remediation, and research and development contracts.

Read Marcia's full bio.

On December 26, 2017, defendant Gilead Sciences Inc. filed a petition for certiorari (case number 17-936), requesting the Supreme Court to review a major Ninth Circuit False Claims Act (FCA) ruling on liability in United States of America ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences Inc. The petition argues that the Ninth Circuit adopted an approach to materiality that is inconsistent with the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, and conflicts with other appellate interpretations of Escobar’s materiality guidance. This is a case with significant implications for the Government contracts community, as the Ninth Circuit’s approach dilutes the protections offered by Escobar to FCA defendants.
Continue Reading

The long-awaited study by the RAND Corporation (RAND) that was performed pursuant to Section 885 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was delivered to Congress on December 21, 2017 and released to the public last week. Not only does RAND  clearly explain with data the reasons for the Government’s long-standing decision to have a robust bid protest system to review of agencies’ procurement decisions, but RAND’s data, analyses, and recommendations also undercut most of the incessant (and growing) calls for restrictions on bid protests. Among other things, the RAND report demonstrates that there is no basis for the “pilot program” of restrictions imposed by Section 827 of the 2018 NDAA—which requires payment of agencies’ “costs incurred in processing” bid protests by large Government contractors in the event a challenge is not successful.

As RAND explained, the Government, “is a powerful entity in the economy,” and  has a “moral duty to maintain fairness in how it awards large contracts.” The Government also needs to “deter and punish ineptitude, sloth, or corruption of public purchasing officials” (among other reasons for the bid protest system). For years, there have been complaints about the purported abuse of the bid protest process by contractors and unnecessary delays resulting from excessive bid protests. Although the officials calling for restrictions on bid protests were presumably able to present their best evidence and arguments to RAND’s independent analysts, the empirical data simply does not support the restrictions sought. The annual complaints about bid protests in the run-up to each year’s NDAA should cease—and Section 827 of the 2018 NDAA should be repealed.


Continue Reading

Should whistleblowers be permitted to recover hundreds of millions of dollars when the Government steadfastly insists that the factual underpinnings of a False Claims Act relator’s allegations are flatly incorrect? Although a federal district court in Texas awarded more than $660 million in damages to a relator based on purportedly inadequate disclosures to a federal agency, the post-Escobar materiality standard served as an important guardrail for the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court reversed and put an end to the abusive FCA lawsuit. Among other things, the court recognized that the federal agency’s repeated, “authoritative” findings that the design and product at issue was compliant with federal safety standards and eligible for federal reimbursement were fundamentally at odds with the notion that the disclosures at issue were material to the government’s decision to pay the claim.
Continue Reading

On July 21, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,806 on “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States.” Noting that the ability of United States domestic manufacturers to supply “essential components” that are “critical to national security” is “essential to the economic strength and national security of the United States,” the Order announced a policy of fostering “healthy manufacturing and defense industrial base and resilient supply chains.”
Continue Reading

On June 27, 2016, in McDonnell v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved a case of substantial interest to businesses that interact regularly with government officials with respect to grants, contracts, regulations and numerous other matters. The Court vacated the conviction of the former governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, because it was based on an improperly expansive interpretation of “official act” as used in the federal bribery statute. The Court’s opinion rejects the Department of Justice’s expansive interpretation of the relevant statutes and holds that a government official’s “setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act’”—and, thus, is not sufficient to support a conviction. Instead, an honest services fraud allegation must involve:

  • Ÿ “a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy’”
  • Ÿ “a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee”
  • Ÿ “something specific and focused that is ‘pending’ or ‘may by law be brought’ before a public official”
  • Ÿ a “public official [who] make[s] a decision or take[s] an action on that ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,’  or agree[s] to do so.”


Continue Reading

Today, in Universal Health Services v United States ex rel. Escobar, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on a question of great importance for government contractors: whether a claim presented to the United States for payment can be false or fraudulent for purposes of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) under the so-called “implied certification” theory. The Court answered in the affirmative, unanimously holding that “the implied false certification theory can, at least in some circumstances, provide a basis for liability.” The Court sought to allay any “concerns about fair notice and open-ended liability” by emphasizing the strict application of the FCA’s materiality and scienter requirements, clarifying the meaning of these requirements, and rejecting the Government and Second Circuit’s interpretation of implied certification as “extraordinarily expansive.” It remains to be seen whether the Court’s descriptions of the manner in which the FCA’s materiality and scienter requirements should be “rigorous[ly]” applied will provide meaningful protections to government contractors, including healthcare and other companies participating in various government programs, that face potential FCA liability based on implied certification theories of liability.
Continue Reading

On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513. At issue is an important question for the government contract community: “What standard governs the decision whether to dismiss a relator’s claim for violation of the FCA’s seal requirement, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)?”
Continue Reading

Back in August 2015, DoD issued an interim rule, which was effective immediately (and was previously discussed on this blog), imposing substantial new requirements on government contractors with respect to reporting information system network penetrations—and providing new cloud computing requirements. Six weeks later, DoD issued a class deviation giving contractors more time to

The September 9, 2015 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General Yates makes clear that the Government intends to focus its investigative spotlight on possible False Claims Act violations by individuals, in addition to companies. “One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the wrongdoing.” As the leverage for this new focus, corporations are advised that to be eligible for “any” cooperation credit, they must provide “all relevant facts” about individuals involved in the misconduct. As Ms. Yates said in her public remarks the day after the memo was released: “It’s all or nothing.”

The Yates Memo raises important questions concerning how the new approach will affect Government contractors’ actions under the Mandatory Disclosure Rule. Does DOJ’s focus on individuals mean that the practices and procedures companies have developed for compliance with the Mandatory Disclosure Rule must change? To what extent should individuals be the focus of internal investigations and disclosures in order for a contractor’s disclosure to be acceptable?
Continue Reading

A few days ago, on August 26, DoD issued new interim rules amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFARS) with respect to “network penetration reporting and contracting for cloud services.” The new rules, which are now effective, revise several broadly applicable definitions applicable to numerous parts of the DFARS, expand the incident reporting requirements applicable to contractors, and impose security requirements applicable to cloud computing. DoD contractors need to understand these important new rules, which are summarized here, so that they can perform necessary compliance planning and make any necessary disclosures.
Continue Reading