Cameron S. Hamrick

Examples of Published Bid Protest Decisions

GAO – Representing Protester

• OGSystems, LLC, B-417026, et al., Jan. 22, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 66. Successful representation of OGSystems in its protest of the award of a task order by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to support the agency’s Security and Installation Office. GAO sustained the protest where the record did not explain the agency’s basis for finding that the awardee’s final proposal resolved risks assigned to its initial proposal; where two aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal were unreasonable; and where the agency’s tradeoff decision did not reasonably explain the basis f r choosing the awardee’s lower-rated, lower-priced proposal.
• CACI, Inc.-Federal; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-413028, et al., Aug. 3, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 238. Successfully represented protester Booz Allen Hamilton in a pre-award protest challenging terms of a solicitation for the provision of technical solutions for DOD in support of migration to an integrated and interoperable DOD information network. GAO sustained the protest where the price/cost evaluation failed to provide the agency with a meaningful basis on which to evaluate cost to the Government.
• Northrop Grumman Info. Tech.; Broadwing Commc’ns LLC; Level 3 Commc’ns, Inc.; Qwest Gov’t Servs., Inc.; MCI WORLDCOM Commc’ns, Inc., B-295526, et al., Mar. 16, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 45. Successfully represented protester Broadwing Communications LLC in a protest challenging the award of a contract by the Department of Treasury to AT&T for the Treasury Communications Enterprise Network. GAO sustained the protest.

GAO – Representing Intervenor/Awardee

• CACI, Inc.-Federal, B-416549, Sept. 13, 2018, 2018 WL 448317. Successfully defended the award of a task order for system operations and maintenance for the Department of Housing and Urban Development to intervenor Digital Management, LLC. GAO denied the protest.
• Wyle Labs, Inc., B-413989, Dec. 5, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 345. Successfully defended the award of a Navy task order for comprehensive life cycle and sustainment support services to intervenor Booz Allen Hamilton. GAO dismissed the protest.
• Wyle Labs, Inc., B-412964; B-412964.3, May 27, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 144. Successfully defended the award of a task order for engineering knowledge based services for the F-35 Joint Program Office to intervenor Booz Allen Hamilton. GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part.
• URS Fed. Servs., Inc., B-412580; B-412580.2, Mar. 31, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 116. Successfully defended the Army’s award of a task order to perform services at the Red River Army Depot to intervenor VSE Corporation. GAO dismissed the protest in part and denied it in part.
• HP Enter. Servs., LLC, B-410212.2, Jan. 26, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 54. Successfully defended the award of a task order to support the Defense Information Systems Agency in countering cybersecurity threats to intervenor Booz Allen Hamilton. GAO denied the protest.
• ABSG Consulting, Inc., B-407956; B-4007956.2, Apr. 18, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 111. Successfully defended the award of a contract for systems engineering and technical assistance services at the Coast Guard Research and Development Center in New London, Connecticut to intervenor Booz Allen Hamilton. GAO denied the protest.
• CH2M Hill Antarctic Support, Inc., B-40635, et al., Apr. 18, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 142. Successfully defended the award of a contract valued at over $1.8 billion for support of the U.S. Antarctic Program to intervenor Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions. GAO denied the protest.
• Defense Prod. Solutions, B-405941, Jan. 10, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 22. Successfully defended the award of a contract for all terrain vehicles, trailers, and spare parts to Polaris Sales, Inc. GAO denied the protest.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Protest Decisions

• Serco, Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed.Cl. 717 (2011). Successfully obtained a TRO at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for Serco, Inc., as part of Serco’s protest of the Army’s award of a contract to provide certain services at an Army depot.

Federal Aviation Administration Protest Decisions

• Protest of Apptis, Inc., 10-ODRA-00535, Mar. 25, 2011. Successfully defended the award of an $800 million systems engineering contract to intervenor Booz Allen Hamilton in a protest containing a large number of counts. In a 105-page opinion, the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution denied every count.

Examples of Other Protests

• In 2018, successfully obtained corrective action for a protester before the GAO challenging the award of a task order to provide program support for a civilian agency early in the protest proceedings.
• Successfully represented an architectural firm in a protest at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims involving a high-profile contract to design a Federal building. GSA had awarded the contract to our client, but subsequently reversed course and decided to recompete the design under questionable circumstances. GSA agreed to cancel the recompetition and engage in negotiations with our client as the awardee, which was a complete victory.
• Successfully obtained corrective action for a protester at the GAO challenging the award of a logistics support task order to another company early in the protest proceedings.

Accounting, Cost & Pricing – Audit Report Responses

• Successfully represented a software company in responding to and resolving issues raised in a DCAA audit report that questioned over $1 million of the company’s final indirect rate proposal, and the Contracting Officer’s notice of intent to disallow the questioned amount.

Accounting, Cost & Pricing – Litigation

• Represented General Motors Corporation in a case at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims regarding complicated pension cost accounting issues under CAS 413. See, e.g., General Motors Corp. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 153 (2005) (Court rejected certain Government defenses against GM’s claim arising out of segment closure under CAS 413.50(c)(12)); General Motors Corp. v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 608 (2013) (GM prevailed on issue of proper date of segment closing).
• Prepared Amicus Brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of the Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., in General Dynamics Corporation v. Panetta, No. 2012-1249 (Aug. 17, 2012 Fed. Cir.). The brief dealt with an ASBCA decision holding that CAS-covered contractors who prepare retirement plan forward pricing rates are prohibited from using a methodology involving a current market value of pension plan assets as part of “intra-year” projections of market value.

Construction

• Successfully represented a major corporation in a construction dispute involving subsurface obstructions at a U.S. Department of Energy nuclear facility. The case settled to the client’s satisfaction following a mediation.
• Successfully represented a subcontractor under a U.S. Army prime contract in a dispute with the prime contractor concerning differing site conditions encountered at a military facility in Germany.
• Successfully represented the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), as a substantial participant on the litigation team, in an enormous dispute before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which arose out of the default terminations by WMATA of the contractor under contracts for the construction of two subway stations and adjoining tunnels in the heart of Washington, D.C., including significant involvement in successfully defending against a motion for summary judgment relating to suretyship law. See Mergentime Corp. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 775 F. Supp. 14 (D.D.C. 1991). Judge George H. Revercomb presided over the trial, which he characterized as the most complex civil trial in his 23 years on the bench. He eventually rendered his decision in a 251-page opinion, affirming the terminations and awarding over $16 million in damages to WMATA. See Mergentime Corp. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 89-1055, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11123 (D.D.C. July 30, 1993).

Cybersecurity

• Represented a contractor whose IT system had been breached by a cybersecurity attack. Provided advice with respect to the client’s Government contracts and subcontracts, including advice concerning DFARS 204.252-7012.

False Claims Act

• Represented a major corporation in a qui tam case brought by a former employee under the civil False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The matter was resolved successfully after engaging in a mediation.

Freedom of Information Act

• Represented numerous contractors, including in litigation, as part of challenging agency plans to disclose the contractors’ confidential information in response to requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Investigations

• Represented numerous contractors in criminal and civil fraud investigations, including grand jury investigations.

Suspension and Debarment

• Successfully represented a defense contractor that had been suspended – twice – from performing Government contracts; convinced the Navy Suspension and Debarment Official to lift the two separate suspensions. As part of lifting the first suspension, the agency lawyer said that we had “decimated” the administrative record.

Terminations

• Represented a major Government contractor before the ASBCA in a dispute arising out of the Army’s termination for cause of a significant task order. After we filed a lengthy complaint and discovery requests, and the Army produced documents, the Army agreed to convert the termination for cause into a termination for convenience.

Cameron handled most of these matters before joining Miles & Stockbridge in 2018.