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


Government Contracts

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS

Litigation

In government contracting, bid protests are a fact of life. Our attorneys have extensive experience in counseling clients through the debriefing process when they lose a contract, deciding whether to file a protest, and preparing the protest for filing with the GAO or the Court of Federal Claims. We also vigorously defend against protests filed against contract awards made to our clients. Our attorneys possess considerable experience in filing and handling small business-size protests before the SBA Area Offices and Office of Hearings and Appeals, and they have experience in pursuing and defending protests filed with the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisitions.

The litigation experience of our attorneys extends beyond the protest arena, as we regularly represent clients in handling disputes with both federal customers and third parties (typically prime contractors or subcontractors) before various tribunals, including federal and state courts, the ASBCA and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. We also are experienced in representing in federal courts clients that are faced with civil and criminal charges related to government contracts. Further, our attorneys advocate and utilize alternative dispute resolution techniques when appropriate.
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.