Opinion ID: 171442
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Reliance

Text: The district court also found, as an undisputed fact, that defendants relied upon this policythe DoD's ongoing confirmation that an institution was eligible if it appeared on the DoE's minority-institution listsin applying for DoD set-aside contracts. Because relators offer no evidence to suggest that defendants did not rely upon the DoD's policy, we agree. With respect to Mr. Birx, such reliance is asserted in his affidavit in support of defendants' summary judgment motion. In this affidavit, Mr. Birx averred that NMSU received the April 1994 memorandum, the 2000 DoD announcement, and the DoE's list of minority institutions for 2000. There is also no dispute that NMSU received the 1996 announcement, and that various DoD solicitations in 1999, which resulted in contractual awards to NMSU, expressly linked minority-institution status with proof of SOE certification. Mr. Birx then averred that, based at least upon the 1994 and 2000 documents, [14] he personally signed minority institution contracts on behalf of NMSU. He further professed reliance upon statements of minority-institution eligibility repeated to me by numerous NMSU administrators and also by contracting officers from various agencies within the DOD. App. at 595. Relators point to no evidence in the record to dispute Mr. Birx's assertion of reliance. The remaining defendants did not offer affidavits averring that they knew about or relied upon the DoD's policy of deferring to the DoE's eligibility lists. Nonetheless, this is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the following undisputed facts: (1) NMSU received the relevant DoD documents and DoE lists; (2) NMSU was eligible for DoD set-aside contracts prior to the 1993 changes, and the April 1994 memorandum reached NMSU before the issuance of all the false certifications; [15] (3) either the DoD's policy or the DoE's designation of NMSU as a minority institution, or both, appeared in many of the DoD's solicitations to NMSU for set-aside proposals; (4) defendants, as high-ranking administrators, were the primary recipients of the DoD's communications with NMSU; and (5) defendants submitted proposals to the DoD on behalf of NMSU. Again, relators offer no evidence to suggest that defendants did not rely upon the DoD's policy.