Opinion ID: 709078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Form DD-250s

Text: 54 The district court found that there was no legally sufficient basis to find that the Form DD-250s introduced by Butler constituted claims under the FCA, because A signed DD-250 is a representation by a government official that a product conforms to contract specifications. Butler urges that the DD-250s constitute representations by MDHC and thus were claims under the FCA because MDHC prepared them, and because they were prerequisites to submitting an invoice. 55 A DD-250 is a form supplied by the government which the contractor fills in, identifying the contract by number and providing a description of the item; the government then signs the form. The form has a variety of uses, and can be used as an invoice. The DD-250s in this case were not submitted as invoices (and, in fact, MDHC submitted separate invoices). Instead, they were used as receiving forms, completed by a government official ... indicat[ing] that the goods had been received and had been inspected by a government official. United States v. Wertheimer, 434 F.2d 1004, 1005 (2d Cir.1970). Nor did Butler introduce into evidence any proof of misrepresentation in the supporting documents that may have accompanied the DD-250s. 56 The United States has submitted an amicus brief urging this court to affirm the district court's decision regarding the DD-250s on the narrow ground that the DD-250s in this case were not invoices, and the district court found no other evidence of failure to meet contract specifications. 57 In United States v. Cannon, 41 F.3d 1462 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 86, 133 L.Ed.2d 44 (1995), the Eleventh Circuit reversed a conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 on the ground that a contractor did not lie to the government by submitting a Form DD-250, even though the parts supplied did not conform to specifications. Nowhere on the DD-250 does [the defendant] or anyone else at [the company] certify that the parts supplied conform to the contract. Rather, the government [quality assurance representative] signs the form signifying acceptance and conformance of the goods. Id. at 1468. The court rejected the government's argument that the defendant caused the government representative to make a false statement by presenting the DD-250 forms, representing to [the government] that the contracts had been performed to specifications, and having the [government representative] sign the DD-250, accepting the items and certifying that they met the contract specifications. Id. Without more, i.e. a false supporting document, no reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendant lied to the government or submitted a false document: Although the [material] did not conform, the documents did not lie. It was through the failure of the [government representative] to perform an adequate review that the nonconforming material was certified. Id. at 1468-69. 58 Cannon's reasoning is directly applicable to the facts in this case. The DD-250 was not a representation by MDHC, because the government, not MDHC, certified on the form that the goods conformed to contract. 59 We affirm the district court's ruling regarding the DD-250s. Under these circumstances, where the DD-250s were not used as invoices, and the qui tam plaintiff introduced into evidence no false supporting documents, the DD-250s were not claims under the FCA.