PER CURIAM:
Billy Hunt filed a qui tam action against his former em- ployer, The Parsons Corporation, alleging that Parsons violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)-(C), during the Iraq War. At that time, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"), Huntsville, Alabama, awarded Parsons a prime con- tract to assist USACE with cleaning up excess munitions left behind by retreating or defeated enemy forces. All prime contracts are gov- erned by the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR"). As relevant, FAR 52.244-5 requires prime contractors to select subcontractors on a competitive basis to the maximum practical extent possible. In 2006, USACE directed Parsons to hire a subcontractor to provide logistical convoys to transport recovered munitions and to furnish security for USACE and Parsons in Iraq. Hunt maintains that Parsons awarded the subcontract without competition on a sole-source basis, in violation of FAR 52.244-5, based on two pur- portedly falsified records. Hunt further maintains that Parsons and the subcontract recipient, Cochise Consultancy, Inc., conspired to submit false payment forms to obtain payment from USACE for work performed under the subcontract.
Hunt appeals the district court's grant of summary judg- ment to Parsons on his FCA claims alleging that Parsons (1) know- ingly presented, or caused to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for approval or payment to the United States, in violation of
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A); (2) knowingly made or used or caused to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or
2
25-11147 Opinion of the Court 3 fraudulent claim, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B); and (3) knowingly conspired with Cochise to get false or fraudulent claims approved or paid by the United States, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C).
We have considered all arguments raised on appeal by Hunt, including that:
I. The district court erred in determining that the scien- ter element required for the § 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B) claims was not satisfied because USACE knew of the flaws surrounding Parsons's decision not to competi- tively bid the contract and to award it on a sole-source basis.
II. The district court erred in determining that the falsity element required for the § 3729(a)(1)(A) claim was not satisfied because the payment form on which Hunt relies contains neither express nor implied lan- guage indicating that, by submitting the form, Par- sons certified its compliance with FAR 52.244-5.
III. The district court erred in determining that the mate- riality element of the § 3729(a)(1)(B) claim was not satisfied, assuming without deciding that Parsons made or used false records, because the record con- tains no evidence that USACE would have withheld payment on the invoices submitted under the sub- contract had it known of Parsons's noncompliance with FAR 52.244-5.
3
4 Opinion of the Court 25-11147
IV. The district court erred in determining that the § 3729(a)(1)(C) conspiracy claim based on the alleged § 3729(a)(1)(A) violation fails as a matter of law be- cause the underlying § 3729(a)(1)(A) claim fails. After careful consideration of the record and the parties' briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district court's judgment. We do not reach Hunt's first argument because the district court's rulings on his remaining ar- guments provide sufficient grounds for affirmance.
AFFIRMED.
4