Photo of Christopher D. Garcia

Christopher Garcia is a counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring, where he is a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

As part of his government contracts practice, Chris conducts internal investigations regarding False Claims Act issues and defends against related government inquiries and investigative demands. Chris also assists clients with technology-related issues, including counseling clients in the areas of patents and data rights, and defending against government challenges to technical data and computer software rights assertions. In addition, Chris performs government contracts due diligence for buyers in transactional matters, representing government contractors in a range of industries. As part of the firm’s State and Local Practice, Chris also counsels clients on state and local procurement issues, including reviewing state and local opportunities, and leading negotiations with government customers regarding contractual terms and conditions. Chris also advises contractors on the federal Freedom of Information Act as well as state-level public records laws. He has counseled contractors in numerous reverse-FOIA actions at the federal and state levels.

As Congress considers legislation prohibiting government contractors from doing business in Russia, over 20 states have already acted. In this alert, we highlight: (i) how different states are defining Russian business operations, and the corresponding risks to differently situated government contractors; and (ii) unique aspects of certain state actions that contractors need to be aware

As we covered in a prior alert, the recently introduced Federal Contracting for Peace and Security Act (H.R. 7185) could have a profound impact on government contractors. The Act would require termination of existing contracts and prohibit awards, extensions, and renewals of prime contracts and subcontracts with companies doing business in the

During December 2021, the House and Senate reached agreement on a compromise National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.  On December 23, 2021, Congress presented S. 1605 to President Biden, which he signed on December 27, 2021.

The FY2022 NDAA contains numerous provisions relating to acquisition policy—which provide new opportunities for government contractors, will result in the imposition of new clauses or reporting requirements on government contractors, require government reporting to Congress on acquisition authorities and programs, alter processes and/or procedures to which government contractors are subject, etc.  Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group discusses the most consequential changes in the FY2022 NDAA for government contractors below.
Continue Reading National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022: Acquisition Policy Changes of Which Government Contractors Should Be Aware

In Section 839 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) to prepare a report evaluating the implementation of Department of Defense (“DoD”) Instruction 5010.44 relating to Intellectual Property Acquisition and Licensing, including but not limited to, DoD’s establishment of a cadre of intellectual property (“IP”) experts

On October 22, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims (Court) unsealed a decision awarding contractor SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. (SecurityPoint) over $100 million in damages for TSA’s infringement of SecurityPoint’s patent No. 6,888,460 (“the ‘460 patent”). The ‘460 patent concerns a system of trays that recycle through security screening checkpoints by use of movable carts, and

On December 11, 2020, Congress presented to President Trump H.R. 6395, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. On December 23, 2020, President Trump vetoed the bill. Subsequently, the House voted on December 28, 2020 and the Senate voted on January 1, 2021 to override the veto.

This Act contains numerous provisions that

On December 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that contractors may include restrictive markings on unlimited rights technical data as long as those markings do not restrict the Government’s rights to that technical data.

The Boeing Company (Boeing) entered into two contracts with the United States Air

Welcome to our Government Contracts Classroom. Through a variety of media, the Classroom will serve as a resource for government contractors. The Classroom is intended to provide insight and training on issues that government contractors, and their legal and business teams, often face. The Classroom will be updated regularly with new content, host on-demand

On June 27, 2018, in Appeal of CiyaSoft Corporation, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that the Government can be bound by terms of a commercial software license agreement that the contracting officer (CO) has neither negotiated nor seen.  CiyaSoft Corporation (CiyaSoft) submitted a claim asserting that the Army had breached its contract to purchase computer software by using more copies of the software than were permitted by the contract.  The Army denied the claim, in part, because the contract contained no terms specifying how the government would secure and protect the software.  Instead, CiyaSoft had included license terms limiting the software’s use (i) inside the box containing the CDs with the software, (ii) on a piece of paper inside the software’s shrinkwrap, and (iii) in clickwrap that was displayed during the software’s installation process.  On appeal, the Board found that although the contract included no license terms and the CO never saw or discussed with CiyaSoft the license terms that accompanied the software delivery, the CO had a duty to inquire about what use rights applied to the software and the failure to do so imputed knowledge of the licensing terms on the Army.  Pointing to the longstanding policy embodied in the FAR that that the government should accept commercial computer license terms that are customarily provided to other purchasers, the Board held that “the government can be bound by the terms of a commercial software license it has neither negotiated nor seen prior to the receipt of the software, so long as the terms are consistent with those customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers and do not otherwise violate federal law.”
Continue Reading Commercial License Terms May Govern Even Without Contracting Officer Knowledge

Can U.S. law enforcement reach data stored oversees by using a warrant under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.?  Until the Supreme Court decides the issue, which may happen next term, the answer is: it depends where the government applied for the warrant.

Over the last few years, U.S.-based technology companies have been increasingly resisting warrants under the Stored Communications Act for data those companies store oversees.  These warrants, they claim, represent an extraterritorial application of the law, which Congress has never permitted.

Traditionally, if the government has probable cause to believe that a person’s email account contains evidence of a crime, and a federal magistrate judge agrees, a warrant would issue directing the email service provider­ to turn over those emails to the government.  But data is increasingly stored in the “cloud.”  And, as it turns out, the “cloud” consists of server farms located all over the world.  Companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple now host large quantities of data abroad, raising complicated jurisdictional questions.

Continue Reading DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Resolve Split Over Its Ability to Compel Foreign Records