In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 99-279C (With Which Nos. 99-529C, 99-530C, 00-531C, 03-1537C, 05-804C, 06-173C, 06-174C, 06- 175C, 06-176C, 06-177C, 06-178C, 06-179C, 06-180C, and 06-181C Are Consolidated) Filed: October 31, 2007 TO BE PUBLISHED ******************************************* * * MORSE DIESEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., * d/b/a AMEC CONSTRUCTION * Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, MANAGEMENT, INC., * 41 U.S.C. §§ 51-58; * Contract Disputes Act, Plaintiff, * 41 U.S.C § 609(a); * Debt Collection Improvement Act, * Pub. Law 104-134 (1999); v. * Due Process Clause, U.S. CONST. * amend. V.; * Excessive Fines Clause, U.S. CONST. THE UNITED STATES, * amend. VIII.; * False Claims Act, Defendant. * 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), (a)(2); * Partial Summary Judgment, * RCFC 56(b), (c); * Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. * * ******************************************* James D. Wareham, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Washington, D.C., counsel for Plaintiff.* Domenique Grace Kirchner, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., counsel for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE ANTI-KICKBACK ACT AND CIVIL PENALTIES AND TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT. * On November 7, 2005, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, was substituted as counsel for Plaintiff. The record in this case primarily was made by prior counsel: Pecar & Abramson, PC; McManus, Schor, Asmar & Darden, LLP; Arent Fox, PLLC; and Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale. The court has determined that the circumstances of this case warrant maximum civil penalties and damages under the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, 41 U.S.C. §§ 51-58 (“Anti-Kickback Act”) and maximum civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), (a)(2) (“False Claims Act”) in the total amount of $7,292,213. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.1 Between 1994 and 1995, Morse Diesel International, Inc., d/b/a AMEC Construction Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”),2 was awarded four federal construction contracts by the General Services Administration (“GSA”): Phase I of the Thomas F. Eagleton Federal Courthouse in St. Louis (“St. Louis Phase I Contract”), on July 5, 1994; Phase II of the Eagleton Courthouse in St. Louis, on September 28, 1995 (“St. Louis Phase II Contract”); the U.S. Customs House in San Francisco, on February 15, 1995 (“San Francisco Contract”); and the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento, on July 19, 1995 (“Sacramento Contract”). See Morse Diesel I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 792; Morse Diesel II, 69 Fed. Cl. at 559-60; Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 605-7. On April 9, 1998, Plaintiff submitted a certified claim to GSA in the amount of $467,659 arising from the St. Louis Phase II Contract. See Morse Diesel I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 791. On May 12, 1998, GSA issued a Final Decision denying Plaintiff’s claim. Id. On May 5, 1999, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, the genesis of a consolidated case, now consisting of 15 actions initiated by Plaintiff under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (“Tucker Act”) and the Contracts Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 609(a) (“Contract Disputes Act”), and 9 counterclaims asserted by the Government under the Anti-Kickback Act, the False Claims Act, the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C.§§ 601-613, and Forfeiture of Fraud Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2514 (“Forfeiture of Fraud Claims Act”), as well as common law claims. See Morse Diesel II, 69 Fed. Cl. at 560-62; Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 602-04. 1 The court incorporates herein the July 15, 2005 Memorandum Opinion in Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 788 (2005) (“Morse Diesel I”), the February 1, 2006 Memorandum Opinion in Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 558 (2006) (Morse Diesel II), and the January 26, 2007 Memorandum Opinion in Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 601 (2007) (“Morse Diesel III”), as revised. See Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-279C, slip. op. (Fed. Cl. June 29, 2007) (“Morse Diesel IV”). 2 Morse Diesel International, Inc., d/b/a AMEC Construction Management, Inc. has been incorporated and/or conducted business and/or invoked the jurisdiction of several federal forums under the following names: Morse Diesel, Inc.; Morse Diesel International, Inc., a New York general partnership; Morse Diesel International, Inc., associated with CMR Construction, Inc. (A 298, 769, 1520-21); AMEC Construction Management, Inc. (A122, 842); and Huber, T.D.S., P&D, Morse Diesel Joint Venture (A737-60). Hereinafter, the court will refer to the aforementioned entities as “Plaintiff.” A detailed discussion of Plaintiff’s complex and changing corporate structure is found in Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 604-05. 2 Central to the Government’s pending Motion For Summary Judgment on civil penalties under the Anti-Kickback Act and civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act, is the court’s July 15, 2005 Memorandum Opinion granting the Government's December 7, 2001 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, determining that Plaintiff’s progress payment application for performance and payment of bond premiums and certificates for all four federal contracts at issue violated the Anti-Kickback Act. See Morse Diesel I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 798-801. On January 26, 2007, the court re-affirmed and incorporated Morse Diesel I and entered an Order holding that the Government established, by clear and convincing evidence,3 that from at latest August 19, 1994 until at earliest December 12, 2000, Plaintiff engaged in conduct concerning the St. Louis Phase I Contract, St. Louis Phase II Contract, Sacramento Contract, and San Francisco Contract that violated the Anti-Kickback Act. See Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 622; see also Morse Diesel I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 798-801. In addition, the court determined that Plaintiff violated the False Claims Act on six occasions. See Morse Diesel IV, slip op. at 32-33. On February 7, 2007, the Government filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Morse Diesel III. The next day, the court convened a telephone status conference and on February 8, 2007 the Government filed a Motion for Additional Relief and a Motion for Clarification and/or a Motion for Reconsideration. On February 9, 2007, the court filed an Order to clarify that there was no stay on discovery. On April 6, 2007, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Clarification of Morse Diesel III and a Response to the Government’s February 7, 2007 Motion for Reconsideration and the Government’s February 8, 2007 Motions. On April 10, 2007, the court convened a telephone conference and entered a Scheduling Order. On April 30, 2007, the Government filed a Motion for Additional Relief, Response to Plaintiff’s April 6, 2006 Motion, and a Reply to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Government’s February 8, 2007 Motions. On May 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Government’s February 8, 2007 Motion for Additional Relief and a Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s April 6, 2007 Request for Clarification. On May 18, 2007, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for damages, pursuant to the court’s January 26, 2007 Memorandum Decision and Order, together with Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact. See RCFC 56(b). On May 24, 2007, the Government filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s April 6, 2006 Response to the Government’s February 8, 2007 Motion for Additional Relief. On June 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and a Response to the Government’s Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact. On June 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Document Under Seal. On June 22, 2007, the court held a telephone status conference and issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s June 20, 2007 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents and a revised Scheduling Order. On June 29, 2007, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order: granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Government’s February 7, 2007 Motion for Reconsideration; granting the Government’s February 8, 2007 Motion for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration; denying the Government’s 3 As discussed further herein, since the Anti-Kickback Act is both remedial and punitive, the court’s determination was made under a clear and convincing standard rather than the preponderance of evidence standard typically utilized in civil cases. 3 February 8, 2007 Motion for Additional Relief; granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiff’s April 6, 2007 Request for Clarification; and denying the Government’s April 30, 2007 Motion for Additional Relief. See Morse Diesel Int’l v. United States, No. 99-279C (Fed. Cl. June 29, 2007) (order) and Morse Diesel IV, revised to incorporate the court’s corrections, clarifications, and additional rulings in the June 29, 2007 Order. On July 9, 2007, the court convened another telephone status conference. On July 20, 2007 the Government filed a Reply to the May 18, 2007 Motion for Summary Judgment, together with a Separate Appendix For A Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of a GSA auditor, Mr. John Walsh. On August 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed: a Motion to Compel; Continuation of Deposition of Mr. John Walsh; Production of Documents; and a Memorandum in Support. On August 10, 2007, the court issued an Order Denying Government’s July 20, 2007 Motion for Protective Order and granting-in-part Plaintiff’s August 6, 2007 Motion to Compel, but deferring ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, which the court now denies as moot. See Morse Diesel Int’l v. United States, No. 99-279C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 10, 2007) (order). On August 10, 2007, the Government also provided the court with certain privileged documents for in camera review. On August 13, 2007, the court convened a telephone conference and determined that the Government properly asserted that these documents were privileged. See 8/13/07 TR at 9-10.4 II. DISCUSSION. A. Jurisdiction. The court has determined that Plaintiff properly alleged jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and the Contract Disputes Act. See Morse Diesel I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 797; Morse Diesel II, 69 Fed. Cl. at 562-63; Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 620-21. In addition, the court has determined that the Government’s May 10, 2001 First Amended Counterclaim and all subsequent Amended Counterclaims also properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate counterclaims under: the False Claims Act; the Forfeiture of Fraud Claims Act; the Anti-Kickback Act; and the Contract Disputes Act. See Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 620-21; see also Fourth Am. Counterclaims ¶ 3 at 2. B. Standing. As parties to the aforementioned St. Louis Phase I Contract, the St. Louis Phase II Contract, San Francisco Contract, and Sacramento Contract, Plaintiff and the Government have standing to bring an action or counterclaim arising thereunder, pursuant to the Tucker Act or the Contract 4 The court has not relied on any of the 12 documents indexed in the August 9, 2007 Privilege Log in issuing this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Not only are these documents privileged, they are irrelevant. 4 Disputes Act. See Morse Diesel I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 797; Morse Diesel II, 69 Fed. Cl. at 563; Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 621-22. C. Civil Penalties Due Under the Anti-Kickback Act And Civil Penalties And Treble Damages Due Under The False Claims Act In This Case Are Ripe For Adjudication On Partial Summary Judgment. On a motion for summary judgment, if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Summary judgment is only appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”); see also RCFC 56(c). Only genuine disputes of material facts that might affect the outcome of the suit will preclude entry of summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (“As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. . . . That is, while the materiality determination rests on the substantive law, it is the substantive law’s identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs.”). The existence of “some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment[.]” Id. Therefore, to avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must put forth evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for that party. Id. at 248-50 (citations omitted). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986) (holding the moving party must meet its burden “by ‘showing’ – that is pointing out to the [trial court] that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case”); see also Riley & Ephriam Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 408 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”). Once the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, however, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show the existence of a genuine issue for trial. See Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that, once the movant has demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, “the burden shifts to the nonmovant to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”). A trial court is required to resolve all doubt over factual issues in favor of the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1987). Additionally, all reasonable inferences and presumptions must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; see also Moden, 404 F.3d at 1342 (“[A]ll justifiable inferences [are drawn] in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.”). 5 Based on the court’s determination of liability in Morse Diesel I and Morse Diesel III, the Government argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact in this case as to the civil penalties and treble damages due and that partial summary judgment is appropriate. See Gov’t SJD at 3, 7-8. Plaintiff contends that “genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved.” Pl. SJD Op. at 1. Plaintiff, however, has presented no evidence that there is a factual dispute that would preclude a summary judgment award of civil penalties under the Anti-Kickback Act and civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act. See Pl. SJD PF ¶¶ 3-24. Significantly, Plaintiff neither has challenged the authenticity of any documents in the record nor the amounts claimed for the fraudulent progress payment applications for performance and payment of bond premiums, certificates, or indemnity payments at issue, nor has Plaintiff pointed to any conflicting evidence that needs to be resolved by the trier of fact. See Pl. SJD PF; see also Pl. SJD Op. In addition, Plaintiff does not contest the factual accuracy of the Government’s Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact. See Pl. SJD Op. ¶¶ 3-24. Instead, Plaintiff disputes non-material “factual” errors or argues issues of law. See, e.g., Pl. SJD PF ¶ 1 (disputing the Government’s discussion of Plaintiff’s corporate history as incomplete); Pl. SJD PF ¶ 3 (“[Plaintiff] respectfully disagrees with some of the findings that this Court has made.”); (Pl. SJD PF ¶ 6 (“[Morse Diesel III] speaks for itself and should not be restated as a new finding.”); Pl. SJD PF ¶ 7 (arguing that civil penalties under each statute should be limited to the time-value of money). Accordingly, the court has determined that none of these “issues” raise a genuine issue of material fact under RCFC 56(c). See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 247-48 (“Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted [as material facts precluding entry of a summary judgment.]”); see also id. at 249-50 (The existence of “some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment[.]”). D. Anti-Kickback Act Civil Penalties Due In This Case. In 1986, the Anti-Kickback Act was amended: to enhance the government’s ability to prevent and prosecute kickback practices. These practices have become a pervasive problem in Federal procurement. This form of commercial bribery has tremendous impact. Kickbacks directly inflate contract costs paid by the taxpayer. Kickbacks destroy competition and they foster corruption. H.R. REP. NO. 99-964, at 4 (1986). 6 Congress authorized criminal sanctions as well as substantially increased civil penalties that would impose “no-fault vicarious liability” on violating contractors, be punitive, and serve as a deterrent: The United States may, in a civil action, recover a civil penalty from any person who knowingly engages in conduct prohibited by section 53 of this title. The amount of such civil penalty shall be – (A) twice the amount of each kickback involved in the violation; and (B) not more than $10,000 for each occurrence of prohibited conduct. (2) The United States may, in a civil action, recover a civil penalty from any person whose employee, subcontractor or subcontractor employee violates section 53 of this title by providing, accepting, or charging a kickback. The amount of such civil penalty shall be the amount of that kickback. 41 U.S.C. § 55(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also H.R. REP. NO. 99-964, at 15 (1986). 1. The Government’s Argument. The court has determined that the Government is entitled to civil penalties for prohibited activities on four federal contracts under the Anti-Kickback Act. See Morse Diesel I, 66 Fed. Cl. at 799-801; see also Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 622. The total amount of kickbacks at issue for these four contracts is $109,728.52. See Gov’t SJD at 8-9. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Government is entitled to twice the amount of each violation, or $219,457.04, plus $40,000 for each kickback “occurrence.” See Gov’t SJD at 8-9 (citing 41 U.S.C. § 55). Since these amounts, in part, are also the basis for the False Claims Act civil penalties and treble damages claimed, the court has been advised that the Government does not “seek” the $259,497.04 in civil penalties to which the Government is entitled under the Anti-Kickback Act, if the Government is awarded the full amount of civil penalties and treble damages to which it is entitled under the False Claims Act. See Gov’t SJD at 9; see also A416; A407; A379; A380. 2. Plaintiff’s Response. Plaintiff responds that awarding civil penalties under the Anti-Kickback Act and civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act would be “improperly duplicative.” See Pl. SJD Op. at 13. Plaintiff, however, also does not contest the Government’s calculation of civil penalties arguably due under the Anti-Kickback Act. See Pl. SJD Op. at 10-11; see also Pl. SJD PF ¶¶ 47-62. Instead, Plaintiff challenges the court’s substantive rulings in Morse Diesel I and Morse Diesel III and argues that the Government should only receive the time-value of money, not the full amount of any civil penalties and treble damages. See Pl. SJD Op. at 10-11. 7 3. The Court’s Resolution. The court disagrees with the view that imposing civil penalties under the Anti-Kickback Act, and separate civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act for the same acts, is either duplicative or prohibited. First, Congress authorized significantly increased monetary penalties under both acts by amending the Anti-Kickback Act and the False Claims Act in 1986. See H.R. REP. No. 99-964, at 14 (1986) (Anti-Kickback Enforcement Act); S. REP. No. 99-435, at 17 (1986) (Anti-Kickback Enforcement Act); H. REP. No 99-660, at 20 (1986) (False Claims Amendment Act); S. REP. No. 99-345, at 4 (False Claims Reform Act of 1985). The history of the Anti-Kickback Act evidences that Congress intended to use both statutes to compensate the Government fully and deter the same type of conduct at issue in this case: In providing for recovery by the government of double the kickback amount and up to $10,000 in civil cases involving a knowing violation of section 3, the bill fixes an amount which reasonably relates to the actual costs the government suffers when kickbacks occur. As has been indicated, kickbacks often end up costing the government more than the amount of the kickback that is passed along through the contract. In addition to increased prices the government may suffer increased costs from the delivery of substandard goods or by poor performance under the contract. Further, the government incurs expenses in investigating and prosecuting kickback cases. Doubling the kickback payment compensates for these greater costs but keeps the award tied to the size of the kickback itself. In allowing for an additional award of up to $10,000, the court is given discretion to provide greater recovery when it is due. The additional award can also provide a sufficient deterrent amount when the kickback amount itself is small. The Committee believes that these amounts are reasonable in light of the serious harm caused the government by kickbacks and the need to prevent such misbehavior. H.R. REP. NO. 99-964, at 15 (1986) (emphasis added). To support the proposition that awarding civil penalties under both the Anti-Kickback Act and the False Claims Act is impermissible, including treble damages under the latter, Plaintiff cites United States v. Lippert, 148 F.3d 974, 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Lippert”) (restating the view of a trial court that “recovery under the Anti-Kickback Act [of double the kickback amount as civil penalties and the $10,000 per occurrence civil penalty] and the False Claims Act would be duplicative”). See Pl. SJD Op. at 13. Significantly, in that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit rejected the defendant’s constitutional arguments and only affirmed the imposition of a civil penalty, without further comment. Id. at 975 (“[Defendant] appeals, arguing violations of his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause. Concluding the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to this civil penalty, and the penalty was not 8 constitutionally excessive, we affirm.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, contrary to Plaintiff’s representations, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit did not hold that the imposition of monetary relief under both statutes is duplicative and neither has any other appellate court. Congress has determined that doubling the amount of kickbacks was intended to compensate the Government for actual costs incurred, including the expense of investigation and prosecution. See H.R. REP. No. 99-964, at 15 (1986). In this case, the Government has been engaged in that effort for 13 years and certainly has expended far more than $219,497.04 to date.5 Therefore, the Government is entitled to recoup that amount as civil penalties. In addition, the purpose of the separate $10,000 per occurrence civil penalty was intended to serve as a deterrent. In light of the fact that Plaintiff engaged in kickback activity on four occasions, on multiple federal contracts, the court has determined the imposition of an additional $40,000 in civil penalties is warranted in this case. Accordingly, the court has determined that Plaintiff, in this case, is liable to the Government for the maximum statutory civil penalties of $259,457.04 under the Anti-Kickback Act. 5 The threat of apparent criminal sanctions against the company and key executives influenced Plaintiff to enter two criminal nolo contendre plea agreements and agree to pay $1,196,422 in criminal fines. See Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 614, 618-19 (citing United States v. Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc. (4:No.00CR00552) (E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2000) (Plea Agreement and Stipulation of Facts stating: “[i]n each exchange for a plea of guilty [to Major Fraud Against the United States, Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. §§ 1031(a) and 2)], the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri agrees that it will not criminally prosecute within the Eastern District of Missouri this Defendant . . . as a result of the investigation into the Defendant’s conduct during the period August 19, 1994 to date [December 12, 2000] related to the Defendant’s contracts with the GSA designated [St. Louis Phase I and St. Louis Phase II Contracts]” and to pay a $500,200 fine); see also Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 614-15, 619-20 (citing United States v. AMEC Construction Mgmt., Inc. f/k/a Morse Diesel Int’l Inc., CR 501-0502 (LKK) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2001) (wherein “defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of Major Fraud Against the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,1031(a) and to pay a $694,422.40 fine.”). Neither plea agreement waived or released Plaintiff from any civil penalties due under the Anti-Kickback Act or civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act with respect to the St. Louis Phase I Contract, St. Louis Phase II Contract, or San Francisco Contract. See Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 619-20. Plaintiff’s activities under the Sacramento Contract were not addressed by either of these plea agreements. 9 E. False Claims Act Civil Penalties and Treble Damages. The False Claims Act provides, in relevant part, that any person who: knowingly[6] presents . . . a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval [to the United States Government] . . . is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person[.] 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1). In addition, the False Claims Act also provides that any person who: 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 [also] . . . is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person[.] 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2).7 The Government argues that the full amount of civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act is required under governing precedent. See Young-Montenay, Inc. v. United States, 15 F.3d 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Young”) (affirming that a $5,000 statutory civil penalty and treble damage award under the False Claims Act was “reasonable”). Therefore, the Government should be awarded $50,000 based on five false claims submitted by Plaintiff. See Gov’t SJD at 9; see also Morse Diesel III, 74 Fed. Cl. at 625. Plaintiff responds that if the Government is entitled to any monetary relief, it is limited only to the time-value of money and not the full value of the false invoices or any multiple thereof. See Pl. SJD Op. at 7. First, Plaintiff reasons that, since the Government ultimately received value from the bonds and eventually would have had to reimburse Plaintiff for the premiums, the time-value of money is the appropriate methodology for making the Government whole. See Pl. SJD Op. at 4. 6 “Knowingly” is defined to mean that “a person, with respect to information . . . has actual knowledge of the information[.];” see also BMY Combat Sys. Div. of Harsco Corp. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 109, 126 (1997) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)) (Where plaintiff “knew” of a false claim, specific intent to defraud is not required.). 7 As of September 29, 1999, the Debt Collection Improvement Act, Pub. L. 104-134, sets penalties for false claims that may be imposed in a range from $5,500 to $11,000. See 64 FED. REG. 47099, 47103 (1999). The Government’s claims in this action occurred before the effective date of this regulation and therefore may be imposed in a range from $5,000 to $10,000. 10