DSME Construction Co., Ltd.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

2 Adding these concededly erroneous case citations to the 30 false case citations and four fictitious [Federal Acquisition Regulation] cites that appellant included in its Rule 11 Surreply, to date appellant has admitted to including 39 total cites across these three briefs that cite to cases that do not exist. 9 In response, on March 5, 2026, appellant denied that its briefing cites 39 non-existent cases, but admitted that appellant “made references to ten (10) non-existing cases; one (1) in the Opening Brief, one (1) in its January 9, 2026 brief on the vitiation issue, and eight (8) in its Rule 11 Surreply.” 10 Appellant’s March 5, 2026 brief states further that those ten citations of non-existent cases “represent an unintentional lapse in providing inaccurate citation rather than a fraud upon the Board.” 11 That brief does not mention AI, or otherwise explain with any specificity how it happened that appellant cited ten cases that do not exist. DECISION Filing briefs without taking the necessary care in their preparation, including reliance upon fictitious opinions or incorrect citations (whether AI-generated or not) risks sanctions; we have recently sanctioned a party for such behavior by striking an offending brief, guided by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Huffman Constr., LLC, ASBCA Nos. 62591, 62873, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,932 at 189,484-86. Without addressing whether it used AI to prepare its surreply, appellant admits that its original surreply includes “incorrect case names, erroneous reporter citations, and the misapplication of certain regulatory provisions.” 12 Having originally requested only that we strike that surreply, the government now requests (and not in the alternative) that we dismiss the appeal altogether, with prejudice. 13 We decline to do so. The government fails even to address whether appellant’s behavior is the kind of contumacious or contemptuous conduct sufficient to justify the drastic sanction of dismissal, “the severest sanction the Board can issue.” See Utility Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 57224, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,128 at 172,467; Sykes Commc’ns, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 53842, 54077, 04-2 BCA ¶ 32,743 at 161,936. Nevertheless, in view of appellant’s admission that its December 1,

Authorities cited in the passage: Rule 11