Representative Contracting Matters

Examples of contracting matters handled by attorneys in Taft’s Government Contracts practice include:

  • As co-counsel for the intervenor, successfully defended an award of a US$300 million CMS Medicare Administration Contract covering Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (Jurisdiction 6). The protester unsuccessfully challenged the agency’s past performance consideration, its consideration of the intervenor’s innovative proposal, and the agency’s cost realism evaluation.Wis. Physicians Serv. Ins. Corp., B-401068.14, B-401068.15 (2013).
     
  • Successfully defended an award from the Defense Logistics Agency for Enhanced Small Arm Protective Inserts (“ESAPI”) body armor. The protester challenged the Agency’s evaluation of past performance, its best value trade-off and argued that the evaluators were biased in favor of the awardee. The Court of Federal Claims rejected all of the protestor’s claims. Plasan North America v. United States, Unpublished (February 21, 2013).
     
  • Successfully persuaded the agency to take corrective action in response to a protest challenging the Air Force’s evaluation in an overseas contract for medical and social services. The protest was based on numerous grounds, including a flawed price analysis, flawed best value trade-off, and erroneous technical proposal analysis. Magnum Medical Overseas, JV, B-407392 (2012).
     
  • Successfully protested an award for the purchase of various types of furniture for barracks at Camp Lejeune. The GAO sustained the protest, finding that the Marine Corps’ acceptance of a quotation that failed to conform to a material requirement of the solicitation was unreasonable. J. Squared Inc., dba University Loft Company, B-407302 (2012).
  • Successfully defended an award from the Department of Veterans Affairs for consulting, design, and training services on a nationwide basis.  The protester raised numerous grounds for protest, including that the agency had demonstrated a pattern of bias in favor of the awardee.  The GAO rejected many of the grounds for protest as untimely and found that the protester had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice.  Brand Consulting Group, B-406677 (2012).
     
  • Successfully defended an award by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide primary and mental health services at a community-based outpatient clinic (“CBOC”).  The protester unsuccessfully challenged the agency’s evaluation of the proposals and the agency’s source selection decision.  CRAssociates, Inc., B-406018, B-406018.2 (2012).
     
  • Participated in the successful appeal of a Small Business Administration Area Office size determination, arguing that the Area Office improperly analyzed the “3-in-2″ rule where the 8(a) BD mentor and protégé joint venture in question was not involved in the questioned procurement and were not generally affiliated. Size Appeal of Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5372 (2012).
     
  • Persuaded the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss a bid protest challenging the issuance of a modification to a client’s current contract with the Army to add items that were to have been produced by a defaulted contractor because the modification, contemplated by the original solicitation, was within the scope of the contract.  The Court agreed with our arguments that the protestor did not raise a viable protest under the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction.  Ceradyne, Inc. v. U.S., 103 Fed. Cl. 1 (2011).
     
  • As a result of our protest of purchase order award by DLA Aviation as being to a nonresponsive and nonresponsible bidder, the agency took corrective action, to the benefit of our client.  Starwin Industries, Inc., B-404755 (2011).
     
  • Successfully persuaded the agency to take corrective action in response to protest challenging the evaluation of our client’s past performance and the resulting best value decision.  CSBS Business Services, LLC, B-404962 (2011).
     
  • Successfully represented client after the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) proposed to decertify their HUBZone status.  The SBA had challenged the client’s qualifications to be a HUBZone certified entity on numerous issues, including ownership and control requirements, the size requirement, and the residency requirements of the program.  (2011).
     
  • Successfully worked with a client to properly amend their corporate documents to satisfy the ownership and control provisions of the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business concern (“SDVO SBC”) regulations, in response to a protest, the SBA declared our client ineligible as an SDVO SBC.  Upon re-examination, our client was found to qualify for participation in the program.  (2011).  
     
  • Worked with the Department of Veterans Affairs to successfully defend Department of Veterans Affairs award of contract to provide veterans services.  The GAO rejected the protester’s allegations of bias, an improper past performance, and best value decision.  Sygnetics, Inc., B-405138, B-405138.2, B-405138.3, Aug. 22, 2011.
     
  • 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 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. 
     
  •  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.
     
  • 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 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 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 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.