Skip Navigation LinksServices > Business/Transactional > Government Contracts > Compliance Issues


Government Contracts

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS

Compliance Issues

Our attorneys provide guidance and assistance to clients in not only avoiding investigations, audits, conflicts of interest, and legal or contractual violations, but also in handling client responses to these situations.  We help our clients deal with agency inspector general (IG) investigations and respond to IG subpoenas; with audits conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency and other federal agencies; and with responding to and resolving allegations of fraud and violations of the False Claims Act, False Statements Act and other criminal statutes.

We advise clients regarding the existence and avoidance of organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) that may affect contracting opportunities, and we assist them with the preparation of mitigation plans to overcome any OCIs.  Our attorneys also prepare contractor codes of business ethics and conduct, now a FAR requirement, and counsel clients through the difficult and sensitive suspension and debarment processes.
Partners
Bond, Christopher S.
Craven, J. Jeffrey
Gill Jr., Edward J.
Kercher, Kevin M.
Miller, Jan Paul
Newman, Jeffrey S.
Noelker, Timothy F.
Nucci, Katherine S.
Schenk, Claire M.
Shapiro, Linda L.
Stewart, Raymond J.
Sullivan, Timothy
Associates
Lane, Scott F.
BLR Group of America, Inc. v. The United States,
U.S. Court of Federal Claims. We established rights on behalf of our client and generated a precedent for contractors to challenge and require correction of unfair and inaccurate performance evaluations in federal government contracts. The Court held that it had jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act to require the corrections and changes, and thus protect contractors in future procurements that measure past performance.
Behavioral Interventions, Inc. v. Missouri Office of Administration,
U. S. District Court, W.D. MO. We challenged Missouri’s affirmative action procurement program on constitutional grounds because it utilized goals that did not fairly consider the availability of compliant MBE/WBE firms, required mandatory, impossible goals and relied on obsolete data. After a trial on our motion for an injunction, the Court enjoined the State of Missouri from proceeding with procurements subject to the program. The matter was then settled with the issuance of a new Executive Order from the Governor reforming the programs along the lines we had argued.