Skip Navigation LinksServices > Business/Transactional > Government Contracts > Procurement Law and Regulations


Government Contracts

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS

Procurement Law and Regulations

On a daily basis, our attorneys advise clients on issues related to the myriad procurement laws and regulations that apply to government contractors.

We assist our clients with questions about how the many laws affect their business operations and customer relationships, including, for example, the Service Contract Act’s requirements regarding compensation of service employees, the Buy American and Trade Agreement Acts’ requirements regarding the supply of domestic or foreign products to federal customers, the Small Business Act’s requirements regarding preferences for contracting with the various categories of small business concerns, and the Competition in Contracting Act’s requirements regarding how federal agencies conduct their procurements for supplies and services.

We also regularly counsel our clients regarding the legal and practical effects of conducting their businesses within the framework of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the agencies’ FAR supplemental regulations, as well as agency regulations that implement applicable statutes.
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.