United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued November 22, 2004 Decided January 11, 2005
No. 04-5051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL . ALVA BETTIS,
APPELLANT
v.
ODEBRECHT CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 99cv02879)
Herbert V. McKnight, Jr. argued the cause for appellant.
With him on the briefs was Altomease R. Kennedy.
Howard S. Scher, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
argued the cause for amicus curiae the United States of America
in support of appellant in part. With him on the brief were Peter
D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth L. Wainstein,
U.S. Attorney, and Douglas N. Letter, Counsel.
Samuel J. Waldon argued the cause for appellees. With him
on the brief was Ryan E. Bull. David A. Super entered an
appearance.
2
Before: EDWARDS, SENTELLE, and GARLAND, Circuit
Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: Under the qui tam provisions of
the False Claims Act (“FCA” or “Act”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-
3733 (2000), any person may initiate a lawsuit in the name of
the United States for substantive violations of the Act. The
United States, through its relator Alva Bettis (“Bettis”), brought
this action in the District Court against Odebrecht Contractors
of California, Inc., et al. (“Odebrecht”), alleging that Odebrecht
submitted false claims to the Government in connection with a
public works construction contract it had with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (“Corps”).
In advancing his claim, Bettis relies on the fraud-in-the-
inducement theory of liability under the FCA. Under that
theory, every claim submitted under a fraudulently induced
contract constitutes a “false claim” within the meaning of the
Act (i.e., is automatically tainted), even without proof that the
claims were fraudulent in themselves. Bettis argues that
Odebrecht fraudulently induced the Corps to award it the
disputed contract by submitting an intentionally undervalued bid
and making other false representations in order to win the
contract, with the intention of subsequently obtaining upward
modifications to the contract price.
The District Court granted summary judgment for
Odebrecht, relying on two alternative grounds. First, the court
rejected Bettis’s fraud-in-the-inducement claim as a matter of
law. The court held that, where it is alleged that the defendant
has submitted a fraudulently deflated bid in order to obtain a
contract, a FCA action cannot succeed without proof that one or
more requests for payment under the contract were fraudulent in
themselves. The United States, as amicus curiae, contests the
District Court’s legal analysis on this point, arguing that the
3
fraud-in-the-inducement theory of FCA liability properly applies
to allegations of fraudulently deflated bids. In the alternative,
the District Court concluded that, as a matter of fact, the
evidence presented by Bettis was insufficient to permit the
inference that Odebrecht fraudulently induced the Corps to
award it the contract.
We conclude that the evidence presented by Bettis would
not permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Odebrecht
fraudulently induced the Government to award it the contract.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court on this
ground alone.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 1, 1993, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(“Corps”) solicited bids for construction of the Seven Oaks Dam
and Appurtenances in San Bernardino County, California. In
preparing the solicitation, the Corps divided the construction
into 150 separate tasks, referred to as bid items, and estimated
the quantity of each bid item that would be required during
construction. Contractors prepared a unit price for each bid item
that included any indirect costs (e.g., labor, equipment,
overhead) and a profit margin. The final price for each bid was
calculated by multiplying the bidder’s unit price for each bid
item by the Corps’ quantity estimate and then summing the
totals of all of the bid items. The final bid price was only an
estimate, because the winning bidder was to be paid based on
the actual quantities required during construction, not the Corps’
estimated quantities. Bidders were, however, bound by their
unit prices and assumed the risk if these prices turned out to be
too low.
Odebrecht submitted a bid of $167,777,000. The sealed
bids were opened on July 7, 1993, and Odebrecht’s bid was the
lowest, coming in about $29 million below the second lowest
bid, which had been submitted by a joint venture involving
4
Tutor-Saliba Corporation and others (“Tutor-Saliba”), and
almost $36 million below the Corps’ cost estimate (without
profit) of $203,771,540.
Tutor-Saliba commenced a series of bid protests seeking to
prevent Odebrecht from being awarded the contract. On March
29, 1994, following the resolution of the bid protests, Odebrecht
was awarded the contract. The Corps issued Odebrecht a notice
to proceed with construction on April 20, 1994, and Odebrecht
began construction shortly thereafter.
During the course of construction, Odebrecht requested and
received a number of “equitable adjustments” to the contract
price. Equitable adjustments are used to keep a contractor
whole when the Government modifies the contract or, under
some Government contracts, for changed circumstances. See 48
C.F.R. §§ 52.243-4, 52.243-5 (2003). They are not available for
reasons unrelated to a change, such as to compensate a
contractor who has underestimated his bid or encountered
unanticipated expenses or inefficiencies. Pac. Architects &
Eng’rs Inc. v. United States, 491 F.2d 734, 739 (Ct. Cl. 1974).
Ultimately, by August 31, 2003, the Government had paid
Odebrecht nearly $268 million, an amount that exceeded the bid
price by more than $100 million. Even so, Odebrecht maintains
that it sustained a loss in excess of $30 million on the project.
It is undisputed that the Corps was satisfied with
Odebrecht’s work on the project. Indeed, in 1999, the Corps
awarded Odebrecht its Civil Works Construction Contractor of
the Year award for Odebrecht’s “exceptional performance” on
the project.
In 1999, relator Alva Bettis, who had been employed as a
project scheduler by a consulting firm retained by the Corps to
monitor the dam’s progress, commenced this action in the
District Court, alleging that Odebrecht violated the FCA. The
complaint was filed under seal and in the name of the United
5
States, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the FCA. See 31
U.S.C. § 3730(b). After the Government declined to exercise its
right to intervene and proceed with the action under § 3730(b),
the complaint was unsealed and served.
In June 2002, Bettis filed his Third Amended Complaint,
which included seven counts in which he claimed that
Odebrecht violated the FCA. In Count I (the only count relevant
to this appeal), Bettis pressed a fraud-in-the-inducement claim,
alleging that Odebrecht fraudulently induced the Corps to award
it the contract. Specifically, Bettis alleged that Odebrecht
violated the Act by submitting an intentionally low bid – at
which price Odebrecht knew or should have known that it could
not have completed the project – with the intention of seeking
adjustments to the price after winning the contract. On October
24, 2002, the District Court issued an order dismissing the count
without prejudice. See United States ex rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht
Contractors of Cal., Inc., Civ. A. No. 99-2879, slip op. at 4-13
(D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2002) (“Mem. Op.”), reprinted in Joint
Appendix (“J.A.”) at 39, 42-51. The court explained that the
count failed to state a claim, because Bettis failed to allege that
Odebrecht “submitted any claim for payment in excess of its bid
price,” and because a “relator cannot hold [a] defendant liable
under the FCA merely for obtaining the contract based on an
intentionally undervalued bid.” See id. at 12, J.A. at 50.
Bettis thereafter filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in
which he amended and re-alleged Count I. The amended
complaint alleged that Odebrecht violated the Act by submitting
an intentionally undervalued bid in order to win the contract
with the intention of seeking false modifications to the price,
and then submitting false modifications. Upon completion of
discovery, Odebrecht moved for summary judgment on all
counts, and Bettis moved for summary judgment on Count I.
The District Court granted summary judgment for
Odebrecht on all counts. See United States ex rel. Bettis v.
6
Odebrecht Contractors of Cal., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 272
(D.D.C. 2004). Regarding Bettis’s fraud-in-the-inducement
claim, the court first held, consistent with its earlier
memorandum opinion, that Bettis’s claim failed as a matter of
law, because his claim rested on “the flawed legal argument that
he can prevail on a mere showing that [1] [Odebrecht]
fraudulently induced [the Corps] to enter into the contract by
submitting a low bid intending to seek additional monies, and
[2] that [Odebrecht] obtained monies above and beyond the
contract price.” Id. at 280-81. According to the court, as to the
second element, “there must be a claim for money to which the
contractor is not legitimately entitled” – in other words, a
showing that the actual claims submitted under the contract were
themselves fraudulent. Id. at 281 (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted). Alternatively, the District Court held that,
even under Bettis’s legal theory, his claim failed as a factual
matter because “the facts upon which [Bettis] relies do not
permit an inference that [Odebrecht] fraudulently induced [the
Corps] to sign the contract by submitting a bid that it knew or
should have known was false, intending to seek subsequent
adjustments.” Id. at 283. Finally, the District Court concluded
that the evidence did not permit an inference that any of the
requests for adjustments submitted by Odrebrecht were
themselves false or fraudulent. See id. at 283, 290-95. This
appeal followed.
Bettis challenges the District Court’s resolution of his
fraud-in-the-inducement claim. Bettis does not challenge the
District Court’s judgment with respect to any counts other than
Count I, or with respect to the District Court’s conclusion that
none of the requests for adjustments submitted by Odebrecht
could be found fraudulent in themselves. The United States
appeared as amicus curiae for the sole purpose of contesting the
District Court’s articulation of the legal standard for establishing
a fraud-in-the-inducement claim in the context of an allegedly
fraudulent low bid.
7
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant
summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d
958, 965 (D.C. Cir. 2004). A party is entitled to summary
judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and
judgment in the movant’s favor is proper as a matter of law. Id.
at 966. Put another way, a party is entitled to summary
judgment only if no reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the non-moving party. Hall v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F.3d 1074,
1077 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
B. The False Claims Act and Fraud-in-the-Inducement
Liability Thereunder
The False Claims Act was originally enacted in 1863 to
protect the United States Government from financial loss
resulting from fraud. The Act establishes liability for any
person who:
(1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an
officer or employee of the United States Government . . . a
false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; [or] (2)
knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a
false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim
paid or approved by the Government[.]
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). The Act imposes two types of liability.
“First, the submitter of a ‘false claim’ or ‘statement’ is liable for
a civil penalty, regardless of whether the submission of the
claim actually causes the government any damages; even if the
claim is rejected, its very submission is a basis for liability.
Second, the submitter of the claim is liable for damages that the
government sustains because of the submission of the false
claim.” United States ex rel. Schwedt v. Planning Research
8
Corp., 59 F.3d 196, 199 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The term “claim” is
broadly defined to include “any request or demand, whether
under a contract or otherwise, for money or property which is
made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the United
States Government provides any portion of the money or
property which is requested or demanded.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(c).
Although the focus of the FCA is on false “claims,” courts
have employed a “fraud-in- the-inducement” theory to establish
liability under the Act for each claim submitted to the
Government under a contract which was procured by fraud, even
in the absence of evidence that the claims were fraudulent in
themselves. See generally United States ex rel. Harrison v.
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 787-88 (4th
Cir. 1999) (surveying the case law on fraud-in-the-inducement
FCA liability). The most prominent of these cases is United
States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1943), in which
several electrical contractors were held liable under the Act for
claims submitted under a government contract obtained through
collusive bidding. The Court found that each claim was
actionable under the Act, even without proof that the claims
themselves were false:
This fraud did not spend itself with the execution of the
contract. Its taint entered into every swollen estimate which
was the basic cause for payment of every dollar paid by the
[government] . . . . The initial fraudulent action and every
step thereafter taken pressed ever to the ultimate goal –
payment of government money to persons who had caused
it to be defrauded.
Id. at 543-44.
When Congress amended the FCA in 1986, its legislative
history recognized fraud-in-the-inducement liability under the
Act. Specifically, Congress noted that, under FCA case law,
“each and every claim submitted under a contract, loan
9
guarantee, or other agreement which was originally obtained by
means of false statements or other corrupt or fraudulent conduct,
or in violation of any statute or applicable regulation, constitutes
a false claim.” S. REP . NO. 99-345, at 9 (1986), reprinted in
1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5274.
In this case, the District Court acknowledged that, “[i]f
construed broadly,” the fraud-in-the-inducement theory of
liability could support Bettis’s claim. Mem. Op. at 10, J.A. at
48. In this respect, the court noted that the complaint alleged
that Odebrecht made a false statement by submitting a
fraudulently low bid, which induced the Corps to enter into the
contract under which it was obligated to pay the claims that
Odebrecht eventually submitted. However, the District Court
refused to “extend” the fraud-in-the-inducement theory in this
way. While concluding that, under Hess, claims submitted
under a contract obtained after a fraudulently inflated bid are
actionable even though the claims are neither false nor
fraudulent in themselves, the court held that, where it is alleged
that the defendant has submitted a fraudulently deflated bid, it
must be shown not only that the low bid was fraudulent but also
that one or more requests for payment under the contract
induced by the low bid were themselves fraudulent. See Bettis,
297 F. Supp. 2d at 279-83; Mem. Op. at 11-12, J.A. at 49-50.
The District Court reasoned that “it would be nonsensical and
illogical” and “contrary to . . . the FCA’s goal of protecting the
public fisc to punish a defendant for submitting a low bid even
if the defendant knows or should have known that he cannot
perform at that price.” Bettis, 297 F. Supp. 2d at 280-81 (citing
Mem. Op. at 11-12, J.A. at 49-50). Unless the defendant
actually seeks false modifications to the bid price, the District
Court concluded, the Government “would actually benefit” from
the fraudulent low bid. Mem. Op. at 12, J.A. at 50 (emphasis
omitted).
10
The United States, as amicus curiae, challenges the District
Court’s analysis. The Government argues that there is no basis
in the text of the FCA for distinguishing between a fraudulently
inflated bid and a fraudulently deflated one, and maintains that
FCA liability should attach to claims under any fraudulently
induced contract. See Br. for the United States at 14-15. The
United States further claims that there are at least two reasons
why the Government might reject a low bid if it knew it was
fraudulent. First, the Government has an interest in preserving
the integrity of the bidding process. Second, a low bid carries
the risk of the bidder’s default if it wins the contract. See id. at
21-23.
We need not resolve this dispute. Because we conclude
that, on the evidence in this case, no reasonable jury could find
that Odebrecht fraudulently induced the Corps to enter into the
contract, we do not address whether a fraud-in-the-inducement
claim based on a fraudulent low bid can succeed absent proof
that one or more requests for payment under the contract
induced by the low bid were false in themselves.
C. Bettis’s Evidence of Fraud
On this appeal, Bettis claims that Odebrecht fraudulently
induced the Corps to award it the contract in three ways: (1) by
submitting a bid that did not conform with industry standards for
accuracy; (2) by falsely reaffirming its bid despite its awareness
of rising costs; and (3) by falsely claiming its intention to
employ certain cost-saving devices during construction. We
discuss each of these claims in turn.
1. Odebrecht’s Bid
Bettis argues that Odebrecht’s bid was fraudulent because
Odebrecht failed to follow industry standards for accuracy in
preparing its bid. Specifically, Bettis charges that Odebrecht
inadequately performed “quantity take-offs” in calculating its
cost estimates.
11
A quantity take-off is a detailed estimate of the quantity of
each work item required by a contract. There is no dispute that
performing quantity take-offs is a standard procedure in
preparing bids. And Bettis produced evidence that a fully
accurate and dependable cost estimate cannot be made in the
absence of this procedure. Nevertheless, Bettis’s argument fails.
As the District Court recognized, see Bettis, 297 F. Supp. 2d at
286-87, even if Odebrecht failed to perform quantity take-offs,
this would not establish that Odebrecht’s bid was fraudulent,
i.e., that it contained false representations.
Bettis argues that Odebrecht’s failure to perform quantity
take-offs renders its bid fraudulent because “a bid proposal
implicitly promises that the contractor is in possession of facts
that support his estimate and that he knows of no contrary facts,”
citing Harrison for this proposition. Br. for Appellant at 36.
While it may be true that “an opinion or estimate carries with it
an implied assertion, not only that the speaker knows no facts
which would preclude such an opinion, but that he does know
facts which justify it,” Harrison, 176 F.3d at 792 (internal
quotation marks omitted), the point is inapposite. The disputed
bid in this case did not purport to be an opinion or an estimate;
rather, Odebrecht’s bid was merely an offer to enter into a
contract.
By submitting its bid, all that Odebrecht represented was
that it would perform the work required at the unit prices
specified in the bid in strict accordance with the terms of the
solicitation. See Solicitation at 2, reprinted in J.A. at 1466,
1467. Bettis identifies no facts by which a reasonable jury could
conclude that, when it submitted its bid, Odebrecht did not
intend to be bound by the specified unit prices. Odebrecht did
not, by submitting its bid, make any representations regarding its
anticipated costs or the procedures it employed in calculating its
bid. There are clearly no such express representations, and
Bettis identifies no binding requirements – whether in the
12
federal acquisition regulations in Title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations or elsewhere – that would give rise to any such
representations by implication.
Therefore, on the evidence before us, no reasonable jury
could conclude that, by submitting its bid, Odebrecht
fraudulently induced the Corps to award it the contract.
2. Odebrecht’s Reaffirmation of the Bid
As already noted, after the bids were opened in July 1993
and Odebrecht was ascertained as the low bidder, Tutor-Saliba
commenced a series of protests to prevent Odebrecht from being
awarded the contract. As a result of these protests, the awarding
of the contract to Odebrecht was delayed until March 1994.
During this protest period, the Corps requested Odebrecht to
reaffirm its bid, which otherwise would have expired after 60
days.
Bettis claims that Odebrecht’s reaffirmations were
fraudulent because Odebrecht was aware that its costs were
rising during the protest period. Bettis argues that, despite this
knowledge that costs were rising, with each renewal Odebrecht
“reaffirmed the costs and expenses, and underlying assumptions
contained in the initial bid” and represented that “it was capable
of performing the contract at the stated price.” Br. for Appellant
at 40, 18. Bettis also points out that Odebrecht’s bid preparer
testified that he did not amend the bid because it was his
understanding that if the costs changed he could file a change
order. Indeed, Bettis notes, Odebrecht ultimately did request an
equitable adjustment of $7.9 million to cover escalation of costs
attributable to the delay.
Bettis’s argument here fails. Bettis continues to rely on his
belief that the submission of the bid in this case amounted to a
representation regarding Odebrecht’s costs. It did not. As the
District Court correctly discerned, “[b]y reaffirming its bid,
[Odebrecht] agreed to continue to be bound by its bid and the
13
contract; it did not represent that its costs had not increased, and
it did not promise that it would not seek equitable adjustments
for increased costs irrespective of the justification for the
increases.” Bettis, 297 F. Supp. 2d at 289.
Moreover, Odebrecht’s subsequent request for an equitable
adjustment does not permit the inference that Odebrecht had no
intention of being bound by its unit prices. As the District Court
noted, subsequent mediation between Odebrecht and the Corps
over the equitable adjustment demonstrated that Odebrecht’s
position had merit. See id. at 288-89. And in any event, we
have previously noted that:
Disputes arise between the government and its contractors
every day. Contractors do not win every penny they claim.
On [the relator’s] theory, any contracting party that
misunderstands its legal entitlements and therefore fails to
recover on an invoice in full would be liable under the False
Claims Act – except in instances where it was unaware of
the facts that led to its failure to recover in full. This is not
a prescription for fair or efficient contracting.
United States ex rel. Siewick v. Jamieson Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 214
F.3d 1372, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (rejecting the argument that a
contractor can be said to have knowingly presented false claims
within the meaning of the Act by submitting invoices under a
contract that was arguably voidable by the Government). This
observation is apt here. Even if Odebrecht mistakenly assumed
when it reaffirmed its bid that it could lawfully recover
increased costs through a change order, this does not
demonstrate fraud under the FCA.
3. Odebrecht’s Representations Regarding Cost-Saving
Measures
In July 1993, after the bids were opened and Odebrecht was
identified as the low bidder, but before the contract was
awarded, Odebrecht staff members met with Corps officials to
14
discuss Odebrecht’s plans for the construction of the dam. At
these meetings, Odebrecht announced certain cost-saving
measures that it planned to use and which enabled it to make
such a low bid. First, Odebrecht explained that it intended to
purchase new equipment and operate it twenty hours per day,
seven days a week, permitting Odebrecht to work with fewer
pieces of equipment and to depreciate the equipment over the
life of the contract. Second, Odebrecht detailed its plan to
manage labor by using rolling construction teams that would
work four consecutive days for ten hours per day (known as
“rolling four-tens”), enabling construction to proceed for twenty
hours per day, every day, without the payment of overtime.
Third, Odebrecht proposed to excavate the spillway of the dam
using a technique known as a “glory hole,” which involves
drilling a large hole down a mountain through which earth and
rock is dropped from the top of the excavation area onto a
conveyer system below.
Bettis argues that these representations were fraudulent,
because Odebrecht “never used a glory hole . . . did not purchase
substantially all new equipment . . . [and] did not, but for a brief
period of time, deploy its work force in rolling 4-10’s.” Br. for
Appellant at 38. Arguing that “the best indication of what a
party intended to do is what he actually did,” Bettis claims that
these facts demonstrate that Odebrecht’s representations were
false. Id. at 39.
“Generally, there is no inference of fraudulent intent not to
perform from the mere fact that a promise made is subsequently
not performed.” United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health
Plan of Tex., Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 386 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF
TORTS § 530 cmt. d (1977) (“The intention of the promisor not
to perform an enforceable or unenforceable agreement cannot be
established solely by proof of its nonperformance, nor does his
failure to perform the agreement throw upon him the burden of
15
showing that his nonperformance was due to reasons which
operated after the agreement was entered into.”); W. PAGE
KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TO RTS
§ 109, at 764 (5th ed. 1984) (“The mere breach of a promise is
never enough in itself to establish the fraudulent intent.”). Bettis
claims, however, that the inference of fraudulent intent is
justified on the facts of this case, “when there is no intervening
change of circumstances and where the repudiation comes
quickly after the contract is signed.” Br. for Appellant at 40.
While Bettis is correct that fraudulent intent may sometimes be
inferred in such circumstances, see Willard, 336 F.3d at 386;
KEETON, supra, § 109, at 764-65, the record does not support
such a characterization of the evidence.
As the District Court observed, the undisputed evidence is
that Odebrecht substantially attempted to implement the
proposed cost-saving measures. See 297 F. Supp. 2d at 283-86.
Specifically, Odebrecht initially purchased mostly new
equipment, used rolling four-tens throughout the first year of
construction, and planned to use a glory hole until the spring or
summer of 1995. In light of this undisputed evidence, the fact
that some of these measures were ultimately abandoned as
unfeasible does not permit the inference that Odebrecht never
intended to implement them.
III. CONCLUSION
Because there are no material facts in dispute and the
undisputed facts do not permit the conclusion that Odebrecht
fraudulently induced the Corps to award it the contract, we
affirm the judgment of the District Court on this ground alone.
So ordered.