Government Contracts, Health Care,
International Trade, Information Technology and Outsourcing
Legal Counseling and Litigation

· We represented the lead plaintiff at the Court of Federal Claims in the successful protest of GSA’s Alliant procurement. Serco Inc. v. United States, Nos. 07-691C, et al. (Mar. 3, 2008). The court found errors in the technical, past performance, and price evaluations, as well as the best value tradeoffs.

· We were co-counsel in the successful protest of an HHS procurement for clearinghouse services. In its decision, GAO made the rare recommendation that the agency replace the source selection official, and the agency complied. University Research Co., B-294358 et al., Oct. 28, 2004.

· We represented a financial institution that participated in a Contractor Team Arrangement under the GSA Schedule program in a lease of computer equipment. The Board agreed that our client was entitled to file and litigate a claim in its own name, and did not have to act through the equipment supplier. Key Federal Finance, CBCA 412, April 19, 2007, 2007 WL 1197780.

· The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that our client could enforce the ordering provisions in a multiple-award indefinite quantity contract. These provisions promised the contractor a “fair opportunity” to be considered for task orders, and set forth specific procedures to implement that promise. Failure to follow them was a breach of contract. Community Consulting International, ASBCA No. 53489, 02-2 BCA ¶31,940. We later settled this case through alternate dispute resolution.

· We consulted with appellate counsel and assisted in the reversal of a multi-million dollar judgment under a state’s version of the False Claims Act. Our work involved questions of liability under the Federal version of the Act, general government contract matters, and issues of compliance with Federal regulations. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment against the company. We later assisted in the negotiated resolution of a major Federal False Claims Act matter, filed initially as a qui tam case, for another client.

· We negotiated the settlement of a claim that the Department of the Treasury had used software in a way that was inconsistent with limitations in the license. PeopleSoft USA, Inc. , GSBCA No. 16251-TD, April 6, 2004, 2004 WL 744567.

· We successfully protested an evaluation conducted under a GSA FSS Schedule contract on the grounds that the agency had used an overly mechanistic process for evaluating past performance and ignored other relevant past performance data in its possession. GAO recommended that the agency re-evaluate task order proposals and make new awards, and it did so. OSI Collection Services, Inc., B-286597, B-286597.2, (Jan. 17, 2001). Our client was awarded its costs of pursuing the protest.

· The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that our client was entitled to a share of the savings produced by its value engineering change proposal. Sentara Health System, ASBCA 51540 2001-1 BCA  ¶ 31,198. We were able to settle the amount of the claim through mediation.

· We advised a client on the resolution of subcontractor claims under a major defense program. The issues involved various engineering changes, termination costs, and cost sharing formulas.

· The ASBCA sustained our client’s appeal in T&M Distributors, Inc., ASBCA No. 51,279, 2001-2 BCA ¶ 31,442. The Board agreed with our contention that diversion of purchases from a requirements contract was a breach, and entitled the contractor to an award of lost profits. In another similar case, we resolved a claim regarding diversion of purchases away from a requirements contract through alternative dispute resolution procedures available at the Board, and our client received significant compensation.

· We successfully protested the use of a substantially smaller contract in the past performance evaluation of the awardee’s proposal in Si-Nor, Inc.,. B-292748.2 et al., Jan. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶10.