Roger V. Abbott

Miles & Stockbridge advised a technology company in the sale of its radio frequency products division to a software-defined radio solutions provider.

Miles & Stockbridge represented a defense contractor before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, defeating a Defense Department agency's attempt to unilaterally reduce the contractor's fixed labor rates on four contracts spanning more than a decade. The appellate board ruled in the contractor's favor, finding the agency had imposed indirect cost rates without identifying a single regulation authorizing it to do so.

Miles & Stockbridge defended two contract awards to a joint venture government IT contractor against a competitor's challenge before the Government Accountability Office, preserving the client's work under a $340 million federal automation project. The GAO rejected the challenger's argument that the joint venture could not rely on a member's subcontracting experience, finding that federal regulations broadly require agencies to consider the aggregate experience of all joint venture partners.

Miles & Stockbridge represented a facilities services company in its acquisition of a provider of planning, design and build services for government agencies and contractors operating in mission-critical facilities across the Washington region.

Represented an IT consulting firm in a federal appellate challenge alleging that a government agency improperly took corrective actions in a $1.5 billion procurement process without first seeking court approval. The client was among four companies that successfully protested the original procurement and subsequently argued that permitting agencies to unilaterally make such corrections during active litigation would undermine the integrity of the bid protest system by giving agencies unlimited opportunities to cure defective contract awards.

Successfully intervened on behalf of a government services contractor in a Government Accountability Office bid protest, defending an $82 million Navy base-operations services contract. The GAO denied all protest grounds raised by the incumbent contractor, finding no competitive prejudice in the agency's evaluation under the past performance and price factors.