« Back representative contracting matters
  • Successfully protested that the Air Force violated FAR §17.207, by exercising the options of four ID/IQ contracts where it previously had removed all option prices evaluated at the time of award from these contracts. The Court of Federal Claims agreed, granting both summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief. The estimated value of all services to be acquired under the options exceeded $1 Billion. Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc. v. U.S., 94 Fed.Cl. 512 (2010).
     
  • Successfully defended, in state court, a $1.78M contract award to our client from the City of Dayton for a service road construction project located at the Dayton International Airport. Mainline Road & Bridge Construction, Inc. v. City of Dayton, Case No. 09-CV-5851, Montgomery Court of Common Pleas (2009).
     
  • Successfully negotiated a change in solicitation terms after filing an agency pre-award protest of a solicitation for overseas education services, where the solicitation was ambiguous and unduly restrictive.
     
  • Successfully convinced the Navy to take corrective action after filing a protest to challenging the disqualification of our client’s proposal for failing to submit an electronic proposal in the desired format. Word Systems, Inc., B-403807, September 7, 2010.
     
  • Successfully defended a contract award to our client for claim review services in support of the TRICARE Management Activity. The GAO denied the protest and found that the agency acted reasonably with its technical evaluations and pre-award discussions. IntegriGuard LLC, B- 401626, B- 401626.2, October 20, 2009.
     
  • After learning of the Army's contract award for protective body armor, successfully challenged the evaluation and resulting award decisions. The Army terminated the delivery orders, amended the solicitation and made award to all acceptable offerors. BAE Systems Specialty Group, Inc., B-400542.5, September 1, 2009.
     
  • Successfully protested a CMS award where discussions were misleading and inadequate and the evaluation was flawed. After outcome-prediction discussion, the agency decided to take corrective action. TrustSolutions, LLC, B-401106, March 30, 2009.
     
  • Successfully challenged the Army’s award of a delivery order in violation of competition rules; the Army took corrective action and withdrew its order. BAE Systems Aerospace and Defense Group, Inc., B-400766.1/B-400767.1, October 17, 2008.
     
  • Successfully defended an award by the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) to our client where protester challenged USAID’s scoring methodology, evaluation, and discussions. Fintrac, Inc., B-311462.2, B-311462.3, October 14, 2008.
     
  • Successfully challenged the U.S. Army Material Command’s improper use of technical evaluation criteria that was not disclosed in the solicitation or in its response to pre-award discussions. BAE Systems Specialty Group, Inc., B-310749.2, November 5, 2007.
     
  • Successfully protested the Air Force’s failure to evaluate our client’s proposal in accordance with the terms of multiple-award solicitation. The GAO directed award to our client of an ID/IQ contract as well as awarding attorneys fees. Magnum Medical Personnel, a Joint Venture, B-297687.2, June 20, 2006.