Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Charles BaekPhoto of Erin RankinPhoto of Catherine Shames

In Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States (Aug. 17, 2022), the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) granted the contractor’s request for summary judgment, awarding $195,890 in legal fees the contractor incurred to successfully defend against a False Claims Act suit brought by a whistleblower.  The court held that the cost principles in Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Subpart 31.2 applied to the contractor’s fixed-price task order, and the contractor’s legal fees were allowable and payable under the contract.  This is the second time that the COFC addressed the contractor’s entitlement to legal fees, having previously held that the contractor could recover a portion of them under the Spearin doctrine (which we reported on here).  The Federal Circuit later vacated that award on jurisdictional grounds (reported on here) and remanded the case to the COFC.

Continue Reading When is the Price of a Fixed-Price Contract Not Fixed?

Photo of Olivia LynchPhoto of Amy Laderberg O'SullivanPhoto of Rob Sneckenberg

In this episode, hosts Rob Sneckenberg and Olivia Lynch are joined by colleague Amy O’Sullivan to discuss the Court of Federal Claims’ recent decision in HWI Gear, Inc., which held that the solicitation’s inclusion in full of the text of FAR 52.219-28 required a small business offeror to recertify its size status prior to award

Photo of Jonathan M. BakerPhoto of John E. McCarthy Jr.Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Abi Stokes

In Bitmanagement Software GmbH v. United States, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) that found the Navy was not liable for copyright infringement even though it was undisputed that the Navy made 429,604 copies of Bitmanagement’s BS Contact Geo software when it only paid for

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of J. Chris HailePhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John Nakoneczny

In Tolliver Group, Inc v. U.S. (Jan. 22, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of a contractor who sought reimbursement of legal fees incurred in successfully defending against a False Claims Act (FCA) suit filed by a relator. The qui tam action arose from a defect in the original contract—the

Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Stephen M. ByersPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Charles BaekPhoto of John Nakoneczny

In Ingham Regional Medical Center v. U.S. (Jan. 6, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims compelled production of certain government investigatory documents that the Court found were not privileged work product prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” The Medical Center sued to recover payments for outpatient healthcare services performed in connection with DoD’s TRICARE program

Photo of Mark RiesPhoto of Rob Sneckenberg

In a prior alert, we highlighted the unusual remedy ordered in Caddell Construction Co. v. U.S., in which the Court of Federal Claims nullified the award of a construction contract and ordered the agency to reopen discussions with only one firm. The court explained that the unusual remedy was appropriate because misleading discussions had

Photo of Anuj VohraPhoto of Monica DiFonzo SterlingPhoto of Karla Perez Chacon

Last month, in National Government Services, Inc. (“NGS”) v. United Statesa pre-award bid protest handled by Crowell & Moring—the Federal Circuit ruled that “workload caps” imposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) in its administration of the Medicare Program violated the Competition in Contracting Act’s (“CICA”) “full-and-open competition” requirement. In

Photo of Mark RiesPhoto of Anuj VohraPhoto of Christian Curran

Much that has been written about the bid protest reforms in the Section 809 Panel’s final report has focused on Recommendations 66-69, which expressly address (and propose changes to) the protest process at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”). But the 809 Panel’s most impactful recommended changes to

Photo of Rob Sneckenberg

In a recent blog post, we explained that the Federal Circuit’s decision in Cleveland Assets, LLC may have narrowed the COFC’s bid protest jurisdiction.  Prior decisions had held that a protester need only allege a violation of statute or regulation “in connection with” a procurement or proposed procurement to fall within the COFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction.  But in Cleveland Assets, the Circuit held that the COFC lacked jurisdiction because the specific statute alleged to have been violated was not a “procurement” statute.  We questioned whether the Court had intentionally narrowed the COFC’s bid protest jurisdiction.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc for Decision Potentially Narrowing the COFC’s Bid Protest Jurisdiction

Photo of Rob Sneckenberg

When deciding where to file a bid protest, the most fundamental consideration is perhaps the most obvious one: does your desired venue have jurisdiction to hear your arguments?

In a recent decision, Cleveland Assets, LLC v. United States , the Federal Circuit may have changed that analysis for certain Court of Federal Claims (COFC) bid protests.

Continue Reading Did the Federal Circuit Narrow the COFC’s Bid Protest Jurisdiction?