The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) replaced the Iraqi government after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The CPA wanted to train Iraqi police officers for what would be the new Iraqi government. The Baghdad Police Services Academy (BPSA) was one of the locations at which that training was to occur.
The CPA issued a contract to our client to provide life support services for all personnel at the BPSA. Then, after the Interim Iraqi Government (IIG) was formed and without any notice to or approval from our client, the CPA transferred that contract to the IIG. Later, during performance of the first contract (awarded by the CPA and transferred to the IIG) , the U.S. Government (USG) awarded a second contract to our client to provide the same life support services at BPSA, but for far more personnel. Our client provided these services in a dynamic and dangerous environment. In the end, the USG refused to compensate our client for the increased costs our client incurred, even though the USG knew (because it accepted the services via DD 250) that our client had provided far more services than were required under either contract.
We filed suit against the USG in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Department of Justice was able to persuade the court that our client could not recover under the first contract because the CPA, which had awarded the first contract, was not an instrumentality of the USG and it had been transferred the contract to the IIG. Notwithstanding that ruling, we were able to show that our client could recover all of its damages using the second contract—the one that had been awarded by the USG and not transferred to the IIG—because (i) the services provided under the two contracts were identical; (ii) the period of performance of the two contracts substantially overlapped; and (iii) the additional goods and services accepted by the USG via DD 250 could only have been ordered and accepted by the USG under the second BPSA contract.
Notwithstanding a vigorous and aggressive series of motions by the Department of Justice, our primary case remained intact. Then, after our depositions of the contracting officer and contracting officer’s technical representative, the USG settled and our client received a multi-million dollar recovery.
Our client was the incumbent contractor performing armed security guard services at various locations for the Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”). When that contract neared the end of its term, BPA issued a new solicitation for the work.
Our client was the electrical subcontractor on the $178 million Bassett Army Hospital on Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Our client incurred millions of dollars of additional, increased costs caused by a variety or circumstances—including defective specifications and delay and disruption.
Our client, a general contractor on a large federal project in Texas, faced a multi-million dollar claim brought by a subcontractor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor alleged various impacts and delays for which it blamed our client.
Our client was a lender seeking repayment of a multi-million dollar commercial loan to a failed developer. After filing a lawsuit against the guarantor of the loan, we prevailed via summary judgment against the guarantor and his community property.