We engage in litigation and arbitration proceedings for our government contract clients. We regularly practice before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, agency boards of contract appeals and federal district and appellate courts. Before initiating litigation on behalf of any client, we bring to bear this varied experience in advising as to the best forum for the particular case.

We are acutely aware of the costs and inefficiencies attendant to lawsuits today in the courts of the United States, and we also recognize that litigation can place tremendous demands upon the time and energy of the parties. 

Our attorneys are committed to exploring the most cost-effective means of achieving our client's goals. To that end, in appropriate situations we recommend arbitration of disputes. We often represent clients in arbitration proceedings under the rules of the American Arbitration Association, but also under a variety of international procedures including those of the International Chamber of Commerce. We make active use of alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and mini-trials.

Recent examples of litigation for government contracts clients include:

• We are representing an aircraft and aerostructures manufacturer in a multi-million dollar contract claim against the U.S. Army in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with respect to constructive changes and cost increases on an aircraft remanufacturing contract.

• We defended a security systems manufacturing firm in litigation at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims regarding a defective pricing claim brought by the General Services Administration.

• We represented the plaintiff U.S. defense contractor against a foreign government in litigation related to a contract for the manufacture of advanced high altitude surveillance equipment. The case was initially litigated in the U.S. federal courts; related arbitration proceedings were held in the U.S. and abroad.

• We represented a manufacturer of aircraft tow tractors in litigation against the U.S. Navy at the Court of Federal Claims involving claims of production delays due to defective specifications and failures to cooperate.

• We litigated claims against the Air Force for having improperly opened competition for the second phase of a contract for power generating units in violation of certain limitations on eligible contractors established in the first phase contract.

• We represented a subcontractor that was supplying computer cabinets in litigation against the prime contractor—a supplier of computers—for constructive changes and defective specifications under a Navy acquisition of computers for submarines.

• We represented a U.S. flag shipping line in enjoining the U.S. Navy from awarding a contract that would have excluded our client from the U.S.-Iceland trade in violation of U.S. cargo preference laws. We also successfully defended this matter on appeal.

• We represented a facilities service contractor in a successful Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals claim for reimbursement of costs incurred in a major repair of a Navy facility's waste treatment plant. The Navy had denied such reimbursement, contending that the work was covered by the fixed price component of the contract.

• We prosecuted claims for excess costs on behalf of a contractor that engineered and furnished new telecommunications systems at several Air Force bases, based on differing site conditions, failures to cooperate, impossibility and failure to disclose superior knowledge.

• We defended against Navy claims associated with the collapse of certain military tent structures in a typhoon, demonstrating that the collapse resulted not from design or manufacturing deficiencies by the contractor, but rather from errors in assembly and maintenance of the structures by the Navy.

• We represented a specialized computer-room equipment manufacturer in its appeal before the ASBCA contesting a default termination of a contract with the Defense Logistics Agency. The case, which was settled satisfactorily to the client, involved a dispute over the Government's interpretation of design specifications.

• We represented a consulting services contractor in litigation against the Department of Energy based upon DOE’s constructive ratification of a contract.