Government Contracting

Counseled energy services companies and utilities from the inception of laws authorizing ESPCs and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), including how to continue operations and secure funding in light of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), decision holding that Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) cannot be included in the calculation of “energy savings” under ESPCs and that the provisions in contracts that include SRECs in energy savings are “invalid.”

Counseled re-insurance companies on the federal procurement opportunities (and associated risks) under the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which provides potential opportunities for privatizing reinsurance of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Debt restructuring of a contractor that creates and implements sustainable, broad-based economic development and poverty reduction solutions for governments, donors and the private sector.

Successfully defended a major government contractor in a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against alleged violations of the Civil False Claims Act brought by qui tam relators concerning performance of inspections under a telecommunications contract at an Army Base.

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.

Successfully defended multi-billion dollar contract award to a large aerospace company in successive bid protests at both the U.S. GAO and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Divestiture and novation of Aquilent’s SeaPort-e business unit to Octo Consulting Group.

Divestiture and novation of the TASER (Total Application Services for Enterprise Requirements) business of OGSystems, LLC, a provider of mission-critical services to the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community in support of the national security, intelligence, defense and healthcare missions, to Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., a subsidiary of Ball Corporation (NYSE: BLL).

Filed several protests on behalf of disappointed contractors that led to corrective action by the respective agencies and award to the respective clients on reevaluation.

Formation of Joint Venture between OGSystems, LLC and Peerless Technologies Corporation in connection with the Advanced Technical Exploitation Program (ATEP) II contract.

General representation in connection with stock ownership and establishment of an ESOP for an aerospace engineering company serving the Federal government that specializes in space systems, weapons systems and advanced technologies.

Management-led recapitalization of a government contractor providing acquisition program management capabilities to the Federal government.

GAO denied the protest of an almost $100 million contract award where the protester was not prejudiced by the agency waiving a SAM.gov registration requirement, and where the agency had otherwise acted  reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.

GAO sustained the protest of a ~$30 million task order award where the awardee had included a material misrepresentation in its proposal.

Merger of Aquilent, a provider of digital, agile, DevOps and cloud capabilities for the Federal government, to Booz Allen Hamilton (NYSE: BAH) for $250 million.

Merger of ProLogic, Inc., a mission-critical enterprise information technology and intelligence processing solutions provider, into Ultra Electronics Defense, Inc.

Advised on a multi-billion dollar "merger of equals" between two leading aerospace and defense contractors.

Multiple spinoff transactions on behalf of both buyers and sellers of business units or divisions of government contracts where the target units or divisions were not core to the seller or created organizational conflict issues (OCI).

Non-controlling private equity investment in a government contractor that provides highly sensitive development and advisory services to the DoD, Intelligence Community and NASA, enabling partial cash-out of the founder and funding of company growth.

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.

Organized and performed a multi-country due diligence in connection with the expansion of the international public procurement business of one of the world's leading providers of Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) Cloud Computing.

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.

Recapitalization of OGSystems, LLC, an industry leader in geospatial intelligence, cyber and big data analytics in the Intelligence Community, in partnership with its founders and General Catalyst Partners.

Representation of majority owner in sale of stock in software integration and technology management business for the U.S. Military.

Represented a large non-regulated affiliate of a major utility to identify key risk areas and to mitigate performance issues in anticipation of potential high media and congressional visibility relating to the U.S. Army Energy Initiatives Task Force's $7 billion multiple award task order procurement for locally generated renewable and alternative energy using Power Purchase Agreements or their equivalents.

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.

A major multi-national corporation on a series of acquisitions of U.S. government contractors, including due diligence on the government contractors, contract novations, clearance of Exon-Florio and establishment of FOCI mitigation plan.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Represented contractors of all sizes in internal and external reviews and implementation of continual improvement measures related to mitigating the risk of suspension and debarment including compliance reviews, revised policies and procedures, self-imposed monitors, and presentations before suspension and debarment officials with matters often involving other overlapping criminal and/or civil proceedings.

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.

Represented several executives of large defense contractors in suspension and debarment actions resulting in "no action" letters from the federal agency.

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.

Represented management team in the sale of Midasco, LLC, a specialty infrastructure contractor that provides intelligent transportation system services to federal, state and local government agencies, to Actividades de Construcción y Servicios, S.A. (MAD: ACS).

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.

Represented numerous contractors in internal and external investigations, including investigations relating to potential mandatory disclosures, criminal and civil fraud investigations, and grand jury investigations.

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.

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.

Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA, Inc. v. MWAA, Civ. Action 03-343-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2003). Successfully represented the MWAA in a protest of the award of the $180 million design-build construction project for the Automated People Mover System at Dulles International Airport.

Appeal of The Boeing Company on behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation, ASBCA No. 54853 06-1 BCA 33,270 (April 12, 2006). Led a team representing the world's largest defense contractor in a $230 million sponsored claim before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals involving ten contracts and subcontracts to manufacture state of the art rocket motors during the Cold War. The case raised complex issues of first impression concerning government contract indemnification clauses authorized under Public Law 85-804, insurance, and recovery of environmental remediation costs and toxic tort litigation expenses coordinated with CERCLA litigation, remediation activity, and DCAA audits. The case established that the ASBCA has Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction over claims based on 85-804 indemnification clauses.