by bvernia | January 13th, 2010
In an unpublished decision on January 6, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the EDVA’s dismissal of a qui tam suit brought against KBR, Inc., and catering subcontractors arising from a contract for meals at various locations in Iraq. The relator, a former contract administrator for KBR, alleged that the subcontractors falsified “headcounts” in order to obtain larger payments, and that KBR knowingly passed on the inflated charges in the cost-plus contract.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendants and the District Court that the whistleblower had failed to plead fraud with particularity, as required under Rule 9(b). The relator had not alleged the specific terms of the contracts which supposedly based payment on headcount, the court reasoned, and had likewise failed to allege that the contract required KBR’s certification of compliance or that payment was conditioned on compliance with any specific term.
The court also affirmed the dismissal of the relator’s claim for entitlement to a share in an “alternate recovery” (under 31 USC 3730(c)(5)), noting that any such claim would be against the government and not the defendants, and holding that the failure of his complaint divested him of any right to any such recovery.
