Bid Protests and Federal Procurement Litigation

Our team of government contract attorneys is highly experienced in litigating bid protests and legal disputes before the GAO, United States Court of Federal Claims, and other major government contract tribunals.  As an integrated legal, consulting, and training solutions provider, Centre not only ensures its clients that they will be well represented in court, but also that they will successfully grow their business and reinforce relationships with current and potential government clients.

At Centre Law we possess extraordinary expertise in prosecuting and defending procurement protests at both the GAO and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  As a result, we repeatedly have been successful in persuading the government to take corrective action that directly benefits our client.  In every instance, our clients have gained an opportunity to fairly compete for procurements.  Furthermore, in many cases, our clients either have eventually secured an award or maintained a contract that they would not have obtained had we not filed a protest. 

Below are some examples of Centre Law’s successful representation.

• As a result of a GAO protest we filed on behalf of our client, an 8(a) contractor, the Department of Justice Office of Special Programs canceled a proposed procurement.  Our client had previously secured a five-year contract pursuant to an 8(a) competitive acquisition, but during the second year of performance the agency sought to acquire the same services under a new competition that was not reserved for small businesses.  Because of our successful intervention, our client has continued to retain the original five-year contract.

• In connection with two protests filed at GAO, we twice forced the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to cancel proposed solicitations for medical services.  The restrictions contained in the solicitations would have allowed only one offeror to successfully compete for the services at issue.  As a result of our protests, the VA issued a new solicitation and opened the competition to other offerors, including our client.  Our client was subsequently able to successfully compete for the services and obtained a contract to provide the services.

• In connection with a GAO protest filed on behalf of our client, we prevented the Army’s Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) from continuing to conduct a sole source procurement for electronic equipment.  As part of the corrective action, TACOM provided an updated technical data package to the industry, which enabled our client and other offerors to compete for the equipment.   Through a later competition, our client secured a contract to provide the equipment.

• As a result of an agency protest filed at the Defense Supply Center-Columbus (DSC-C), DSC-C cancelled a proposed award to supply critical electronics equipment.  Our protest convinced DSC-C that the proposed awardee had not been previously qualified to supply the items as required under the terms of the solicitation at issue.  Our client subsequently obtained a contract for the same items.

• As a result of issues raised in a GAO protest filed on behalf of our client, the Air Force took corrective action, which allowed our client to obtain approved source status for critical equipment used by air crews.  After obtaining approved source status, our client subsequently was able to compete for the associated award and soon after secured a related Air Force contract.

• As a result of an agency protest filed at Defense Supply Center-Columbus (DSC-C), DSC-C cancelled a proposed sole source award to supply equipment.  Our protest convinced DSC-C that our client was also a qualified source for the equipment and our client subsequently obtained a contract for the same items.

• As a result of issues we raised in a GAO protest that we filed on behalf of our client, the Defense Energy Supply Center agreed to conduct a new procurement for the option years covered by a multi-million dollar fuel supply contract.  As a result, our client was provided a second opportunity to compete for the majority of the contract at issue.  We subsequently learned that as a result of issues we raised in our analysis of the agency record, the agency counsel and the acquisition office recommended a complete re-solicitation and cancellation of the entire procurement. 

Centre Law has also successfully represented intervenors in protests and other proceedings at GAO and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and actively assists in the defense of protests filed by disappointed offerors.  Two recent examples are described below.

• In a case of first impression, we successfully represented a contract awardee in a proceeding at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in which the protestor was seeking an immediate injunction against work proceeding on our client’s contract.  Because of on-going protests affecting a procurement competition, the Marine Corps determined that it was necessary to award an immediate contract to our client to enable the Government’s needs to be fulfilled pending the outcome of other legal proceedings.  We succeeded in convincing the court that the award of a “bridge” contract to our client constituted a de-facto override of the GAO automatic stay requirement.  As a result of our successful representation, our client continued performance under the bridge contract and has recently been awarded an additional bridge contract upon expiration of the original contract.

• We actively assisted attorneys from the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) in preparing an agency report in defense of a GAO protest regarding an air transportation contract HHS had awarded to our client.  Three days before the agency report was due, HHS had not begun to prepare the report or organize the agency record.  We traveled to the contracting office and worked closely with contracting staff and HHS counsel in order to prepare an effective report on our client’s behalf.  After the agency report was filed, we then prepared and filed extensive comments and additional arguments.  As a result of our comments on the agency record, the protestor subsequently withdrew the protest.  During the process, we developed a professional relationship with both the HHS contracting staff and HHS counsel, which has been invaluable in expeditiously resolving contract administration issues that have arisen during our client’s performance.   

In addition to bid protests, Centre Law has successfully litigated and resolved other legal disputes on behalf of its clients.  We have over 50 years of combined experience in the sector representing contractors from virtually every industry.  Our Government Contracts Practice includes leading members of the government contracts bar with the optimum balance of skills and seniority levels needed in addressing the challenges and problems our clients face. Whether negotiating terms, clearing regulatory hurdles, managing a contract dispute, or defending against parallel civil and criminal investigations, we have the leadership and industry focus to help contractors thrive.  In addition to bid protests, the array of litigation matters handled by Centre Law’s Government Contracts Litigation Practice includes the following:

• Contract claims, including environmental, construction, weapon and information systems and health care
• Wage and hour disputes and claims under the Service Contract Act
• Debarment and due process violations
• Contractors’ trade secrets and data rights claims
• Disputes involving compliance issues, such as cost accounting, the Procurement Integrity Act, and the Truth in Negotiation Act
• Disputes arising from subcontracts and teaming agreements
• Assertion and defense of Small Business Administration protests, including size, affiliation and mentoring issues
• Defense of construction business owners, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, architects and sureties in a wide range of commercial and contract disputes.

The following examples demonstrate Centre’s recent accomplishments involving federal contract litigation matters:

• Centre Law successfully negotiated and settled a multiple count False Claims Act case brought against a small business government subcontractor for a fraction of the seven-figured damage demand.  Centre’s representation further helped assure that the Federal Government neither elected to intervene in the False Claims Act case nor bring criminal or administrative action against the client, thereby protecting the client from possible irreparable harm to its reputation.

• Centre Law’s firm and methodical approach to defending its clients served to prevent a potential claimant from filing a six figured discrimination claim against one client and defusing another such claim against another client at the Fairfax County Human Rights Commission investigatory stage.