Photo of Michelle Coleman

Michelle Coleman

Subscribe to Michelle Coleman's Posts

Michelle D. Coleman is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s renowned Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Michelle advises clients from diverse industries in connection with contract disputes and other government contract matters, including Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims and requests for equitable adjustments, terminations, prime-sub disputes, other transaction authority, and AI.

Michelle also has an active pro bono practice, representing clients as an attorney volunteer with the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. Michelle has helped multiple clients receive long term housing through the Rapid Rehousing Program and other permanent voucher programs. In addition to being a volunteer, Michelle serves as an ambassador and as co-chaired the firm's fundraising campaign for the Clinic for the last two years.

Prior to working at Crowell & Moring, Michelle served as an attorney in the Air Force’s Acquisition Law and Litigation Directorate, where she provided acquisition and litigation risk advice on procurements valued over $14 billion on major Air Force procurements. She also served as a trial attorney in the Air Force Legal Operations Agency, Commercial Law and Litigation Directorate. As a trial attorney, Michelle litigated complex contract disputes before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

As an Air Force litigator, Michelle litigated a broad range of issues before the ASBCA, including organizational conflicts of interest; small business issues; price realism analysis; past performance; NAICS code issues; technical acceptability; nonmanufacturing rule, brand name, or equal issues; construction claims; commercial items; terminations; assignment of claims; reprocurement; limitation of funds; release; differing site conditions; setoffs/withholding; and evidentiary issues. Among the construction cases, Michelle litigated a $28 million Air Force design-build construction claim involving complex differing site conditions and delay issues, and she also litigated and won a claim for alleged defective specifications, undisclosed information, constructive interpretation, and technical impossibility for a contract for the design and construction of an Air Force dynamic break test stand.

Before her Air Force career, Michelle was employed by a defense contractor, where she gained valuable government contract experience in her roles as a business analyst and a subcontracts administrator. Michelle’s government and contractor experience gives her the unique ability to take both parties’ perspectives into consideration when providing advice on government contract issues.

Contact:Read more about Michelle Coleman

As the United States government transitions from the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration, significant changes are already impacting infrastructure policy, with likely consequences to both planned and in-progress infrastructure projects around the country. Disruptions in funding and other policy changes are creating uncertainty for investors and stakeholders involved in infrastructure projects, particularly the potential impacts on projects funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as previewed in our January 18thclient alert, “Implications of Incoming Administration Changes to Infrastructure Initiatives.”Continue Reading Navigating the Trump Administration’s Pause on IIJA and IRA Funding: Key Implications for Infrastructure Stakeholders

In a big change for defense contractors, Congress has amended 10 U.S.C. § 3372 to make clear that a Department of Defense (DoD) contracting officer’s unilateral definitization of an undefinitized contract action is directly appealable to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or the Court of Federal Claims. Congress’s change (made under Section 803 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025) (we report on the FY 2025 NDAA here) is contrary to recent ASBCA and Federal Circuit decisions.Continue Reading Congress Has Spoken: DoD Unilateral Definitizations are Appealable Government Claims

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA or Board) recently published its Annual Report for FY 2024, providing statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and civilian agencies. This year, the civilian agencies with the highest number of docketed claims at the Board were the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Agriculture. These agencies accounted for 126, or 76%, of the 165 Contract Disputes Act (CDA) appeals docketed at the Board. Continue Reading CBCA’s FY 2024 Report – Examining the Numbers

On December 17, 2024, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) announced its plan to launch a new Electronic Docketing System (EDS).  Once implemented, the Board will require use of the new EDS for most submissions. 

For individuals already registered with the Government Accountability Office’s Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS), the EDS interface…

In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. Continue Reading CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email

On September 24, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Memorandum M-24-18, Advancing the Responsible Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government (Memo).  The 36-page Memo builds on OMB’s March 2024 guidance governing federal agencies’ use of AI, Memorandum M-24-10, which we reported on here.  The Memo addresses requirements and guidance for agencies acquiring AI systems and services, focusing on three strategic goals: (i) ensuring collaboration across the federal government; (ii) managing AI risks and performance; and (iii) promoting a competitive AI market.Continue Reading OMB Releases Guidance to Advance Federal AI Acquisition

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) recently issued notable reminders to contractors regarding its jurisdictional authority and the importance of timely filing claims.  The Board explained in DSME Construction Co., Ltd., ASBCA 63878 (July 30, 2024), that it may retain jurisdiction over a dispute even when a different forum is listed in the contract.  In Platinum Services., Inc., ASBCA No. 63878 (Aug. 1, 2024), the Board instructed contractors to be mindful of the CDA’s statute of limitations period, even when seeking to amicably resolve a dispute.Continue Reading Know Your Rights: SBCA Issues Two Important Reminders to Contractors

In Konecranes Nuclear Equip. Servs. LLC, ASBCA, Nos. 62797, 62827 (May 7, 2024), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded approximately $4.9 million in delay-related breach damages to Konecranes Nuclear Equipment Services (Konecranes) due to the Navy’s breach of its implied duty to not interfere on a commercial-item contract for the provision of 25-ton general purpose portal cranes.Continue Reading An Uplifting Tale: Crane Supplier Recovers Breach Damages Because Commercial-Item Contract Did Not Incorporate Stop-Work Clause

In Portland Mint v. United States, Case No. 22-2154, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated the Portland Mint’s claim that the government breached an implied-in-fact contract to pay the Portland Mint for coins tendered under the government’s Mutilated Coin Redemption Program.  The Court’s decision is a reminder of the jurisdictional importance in pleading a contract as implied-in-fact rather than implied-in-law. Continue Reading Funny Money: Federal Circuit Gives Its Two Cents, Reverses Dismissal of Implied-In-Fact Contract Claim

In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded $131,888,860 in damages plus applicable interest in connection with Lockheed Martin’s claim for the cumulative disruptive impacts it experienced in performing over and above work on the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program. The…