The materials presented here are for informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice.
Results for Our Clients
We represented the lead plaintiff at the U. S. 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 successfully protested the failure of the Department of Education to award a task order contract for debt collection services to our client. The Government Accountability Office held that the chair’s conclusion was unsupported by the committee report and his criticisms were unsupported and contrary to the record. In addition, GAO held that the agency evaluators did not consider the entire management proposal in making its evaluation, and that some judgments were inconsistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. General Revenue Corp. et al., B-414220.2, et al., March. 27, 2017.
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 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., et al., B-286597, et al., (June 12, 2001), 2001 CPD ¶ 103. Our client was awarded its costs of pursuing the protest.
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.
We successfully defended a GAO protest against the award of a contract to our client, as reported in EcoAnalysts, Inc., B-406233, et al., March 19, 2012.
After the Bureau of Prisons decided to take corrective action in response to a GAO protest we filed for our client, we successfully defended the corrective action in a suit brought by the awardee at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. American Sanitary Products, Inc. v. United States & Native Green, LLC, COFC No. 17-362, July 24, 2017.
Claims and Appeals
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 supported the negotiated 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.
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.
Counseling and Government Claims
We counsel clients in all aspects of Government contracting, and have developed a client-specific guide to compliance with the standard, boilerplate terms and conditions in Federal contracts.
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 assisted in the negotiated resolution of a major Federal False Claims Act matter, filed initially as a qui tam case.
We have counseled major defense and other subcontractors on data rights issues regarding their work for the Federal Government.