Having practiced for decades in the seat of the federal government in Washington, D.C., our attorneys represent government contractors in litigation and adversarial administrative proceedings such as debarment submission, negotiation over Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA), internal investigations, and government investigations. We have litigated government contract matters involving dozens of federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, Government Services Administration (GSA), Veterans Affairs (VA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Health and Human Services (HHS), Social Security Administration (SSA), Federal Communication Commission (FCC), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
We understand the importance of challenging flawed agency solicitations at the earliest stage. As a firm, we regularly resolve potential disputes over procurements through informal means with the contracting officer and other source-selection officials as well as agency-level counsel and the Department of Justice. And, our attorneys have extensive experience with preparing certified claims, REAs, and protests at procuring agencies and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as well as at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and various state-level agencies. Our assistance with early resolution is not limited to agency discussions – we have assisted clients in immediate and comprehensive resolution in disputes with short and long-term sub-contractor claims.
Our Team
Our government contract litigation attorneys have represented the United States and its agencies in numerous government contractor disputes and have prosecuted fraud related to those disputes. They have also represented the United States in contractor bid protests and in investigations involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and contract fraud investigations and prosecution. Further, we have engaged in significant litigation with defense and civilian federal agencies, including in matters filed at the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals as well as at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. And, they have argued numerous government contract appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Our Services
- Determining the proper forum for dispute resolution: Agency, GAO, or the Court of Federal Claims, as well as whether to appeal adverse decisions and analyzing the likelihood of success.
- Determining whether to intervene on a bid protest while representing a successful bidder.
- Potential claim evaluation, preparation of REAs, and subsequent appeals of adverse contracting officer decisions.
- Counseling government contractors on cost accounting matters, including cost and pricing issues, cost principles, defective pricing under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audits.
- Addressing issues related to suspension and debarment or other forms of exclusion from participation in government contracting, including responding to show cause notices, developing corrective action plans, and negotiating administrative agreements with agency suspension and debarment officials.
Representative Case Matters
–Convinced the U.S. Attorney's Office not to intervene in a whistleblower suit, and subsequently obtained dismissal of the private whistleblower action against a government contractor in a civil billing fraud investigation.
–Persuaded federal prosecutors not to file any criminal charges against a target employee of government contracting firm in a criminal billing fraud investigation.
–Convinced a civilian agency to terminate a suspension without proposing debarment for our client, a “C-level” executive, despite a felony conviction.
–Represented multiple senior executives proposed for debarment by a military department and either received no debarments or “time served” exclusions (decisions that end all contracting restrictions the day they issue) despite grounds to impose multi-year debarments.
–Conducted numerous internal investigations and managed proactive mandatory disclosures to limit parallel proceeding risk, where other similarly-situated entities faced substantial additional inquiries from criminal and civil investigative authorities.
–Investigated government contractor for improperly diverting Government Service Agency funds earmarked for a construction contract to personal expenditures.
–Investigated government contractor for bid-rigging scheme relating to a Department of Education contract.
–Investigated lottery contractor for bribery and bid-rigging scheme.
–Investigated executive director of non-profit boxing association for misappropriating and diverting government earmarked funds to pay for personal expenditures.
–Investigated a company alleged to have violated the FCC’s lifeline phone service program by improperly billing for unqualified participants.
