Skip Navigation LinksServices > Business/Transactional > Government Contracts > Contractor Agreements


Government Contracts

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS

Contractor Agreements

In addition to assisting clients in dealing with their federal customers, our attorneys counsel clients regarding their relationships with other business concerns.  We review and prepare subcontracting agreements, teaming agreements and joint venture agreements that are tailored to protect our clients’ interests in both the competition and performance phases of the federal contracting process.  We also work with our large and small clients in the preparation of Mentor-Protégé agreements that, if approved by the Small Business Administration or another agency with a mentor-protégé program, allow the large business to participate in performing contracts reserved for small businesses while mentoring its small business partner.
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
Counsel
Heifetz, Kimberly R.
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.