Skip Navigation LinksServices > Business/Transactional > Government Contracts > Legislative


Government Contracts

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS

Legislative

Our clients can rely on Thompson Coburn to know what is happening in Washington. We routinely advise and counsel our clients regarding the frequently changing landscape of laws and regulations that affect government contractors, including those that deal with compliance issues. Our attorneys monitor and inform clients of relevant regulatory processes and legislative developments, and engage attorneys in other practices, particularly those in our Washington, D.C. office, as needed. In addition, attorneys in Washington, D.C., work on behalf of clients who interact with the U.S. Congress, committees and their staffs.
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.