Opinion ID: 709078
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Phase II Test Report

Text: 41 Butler claims that the Phase II Test Report, submitted to the Army in November 1983, falsely indicated that the pilot and copilot gunner radios have been successfully demonstrated and are ready for production. He argues that this was false because the testing of the radios was not done exactly as the contract specifications required. As MDHC points out, however, and as the district court found, this summary language about a successful demonstration does not represent that the radios met specifications, and the failure to meet specifications was detailed elsewhere in the report. We hold that the generalized statement with the added details was not the type of representation required by the statute, and so we do not address whether it was knowingly submitted. 42 Butler next assigns as false statements MDHC's representations in the Phase II Test Report that the tests were planned in accordance with the general requirements of the relevant portions of the specification and the Phase II Test Plan, and that [t]his report documents the results of the planned tests as modified by the program constraints described in paragraph 1.1. Paragraph 1.1 explained that the Army and MDHC had agreed to begin Phase III before Phase II testing was complete, and that the Phase II Test Plan was not revised to reflect the planned abbreviation. Butler claims the statements are false because the radios were not successfully demonstrated, and because the Phase II Test Report does not provide the results of the tests in the Test Plan. Yet these statements say nothing about successful demonstration, and actually disclose what Butler claims they conceal: that the Phase II Test Report will not be in exact accord with the Phase II Test Plan. We hold that these statements are not false, and again decline to decide whether they were knowingly submitted.