Government Contract Representative Cases

The following are some of our legal outcomes for our clients. After reviewing, please review our practices area page, find the area that best suits your specific concern.

Then, call our experienced attorneys for immediate help.

Bid Protests

• Court of Federal Claims Bid Protest HWI Gear, Inc. v. United States, No. 20-930 (Dec. 29, 2020) (successful post-award protest; agency failed to require awardee to comply with solicitation requirement that it recertify its status as a small business following a merger)
• B-416576.7 – May 29, 2019  ( Protestor) Global Asset Technologies, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protested the award of a contract to Chenega Facilities Management, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912BU-18-R-0017, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for facilities assessment and engineering support services for the  U.S. Army Reserve, 99th Division.  Watson & Associates’s bid protest lawyers challenge the agency’s evaluation of proposals and its best-value tradeoff decision. The Army took corrective action and also found that Chenega was ineligible for award. See other representative cases.
• GAO Protest. Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by U.S. Army National Guard on award of contract for dental services. Challenge to agency proposal evaluation and source selection decision (GAO File B-414003). November 16, 2016.  
• GAO Protest. Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs on the award of multiple Blanket Purchase Agreements, cumulatively valued at $546-million-dollar for Healthcare Furniture and Related Services (GAO File No. B-413166.5). August 26, 2016.
• GAO protest. Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Department of Labor on the award of a $39,563,270.00, small business set aside Contract for the Operation of a Job Corps Center (GAO File No. B-411656.2).  May 27, 2016.
• GAO Protest.Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Department of Treasury (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) on the award of a $26,748,820.61, small business set aside Task Order for Cybersecurity Defense Center Services (GAO File No. B-412897.2). May 2, 2016.
•  GAO Protest Intervention.Final decision denying Mistral, Inc.’s Protest of the award by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), for a $30,218,845.00 small business set aside contract for Mobile Video Surveillance Systems (Represented Intervenor/Awardee under GAO File No. B411291.4).  February 29, 2016.
• GAO Protest Intervention. Final decision denying STEM International, Inc.’s Protest of the award by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency for a $7.5-million-dollar contract for training operations and support services to the FEMA Center for Domestic Preparedness/ Chemical, Ordnance, Biological, and Radiological Training Facility (GAO File No. B-411940). December 7, 2015.
• GAO Protest Intervention. Protestor challenged agency’s technical proposal and pricing of the awardee. GAO denied the protest. 2015.
• GAO Bid Protest, alleging that agency improperly evaluation offeror’s technical proposal and did not comply with the solicitation criteria. Agency took corrective action. 2015.
• GAO Protest Intervention. Protestor alleged that the government failed to follow local state law for foreign companies working in the state. GAO denied the protest.  2015.
• GAO Protest.Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the award of a $5,649,391.28, Contract for Records Management and Library Services. (Client currently performing contract as the Awardee) (Agency File No. RFQ-1017599). November 9, 2015.
• GAO Protest. Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Department of the Army (Office of Command Counsel) on the award of $4,360,451.00, Task Order for Army Training Management System sustainment and integration services (AMC Level Protest No. 460815).August 28, 2015. 
• GAO Protest. First Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Department of Labor on the award of a $39,563,270.00, small business set aside Contract for the Operation of a Job Corps Center (GAO File No. B-411656.2). July 8, 2015.
• GAO Protest. Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection) on the award of a $30,594,653.00, small business set aside Contract for Mobile Video Surveillance Systems. (GAO File No. B-411291.2) (Successfully re-litigated as Awardee/Intervenor in February 2016 (below)).  
• GAO Protest. Corrective Action issued within sixty (60) days by the U.S. Department of the Army (Office of Command Counsel) on the award of a $19,288,848.60, Task Order for Information Technology support services (GAO File No. B-410322).November 5, 2014.
• GAO Protest. Corrective Action issued within forty-five (45) days by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, on the award of thirty plus (30+) IDIQ Contracts, with a cumulative value of $600 million, for the provision of Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (GAO File No. B-409890.27). November 4, 2014. 
• GAO Bid Protest. Corrective Action issued within thirty (30) days by the U.S. Department of Defense (Joint IED Defeat Organization) on the award of a $34,839,700.36, Contract for domestic and international Operations Research Systems Analysis Support (GAO File No. B-410214).  August 20, 2014:
• Bid protest alleging that Agency failed to follow evaluation criteria after corrective action and failed to conduct discussions. Agency took corrective action. 2014
• GAO Bid Protest showing that the Agency failed to evaluate properly past performance and technical proposal. Agency took corrective action. 2014
• GAO Bid Protest showing that the Agency failed to evaluate properly past performance and technical proposal. Agency took corrective action. 2014
• GAO Bid Protest showing that Agency improperly applied past performance of affiliate company who was the incumbent and not offeror. Agency took corrective action. 2014
• GAO Bid Protest alleging failure to allow former member of the competitive range to take advantage of material changes to the solicitation. Agency immediately took corrective action. 2014
•  GAO Bid Protest alleging agency failure to consider offerors technical approach when using government estimates. After hearing, Agency took corrective action. 2014.
• GAO Bid Protest alleging that agency improperly considered awardee’s subcontractor and technical proposal. Agency took immediate action. 2013
• GAO Bid Protest alleging that agency improperly evaluated contract past performance and pricing evaluation did not follow the terms of the solicitation. Agency took immediate corrective action. 2013
• GAO Bid Protest alleging that agency failed to consider awardee’s subcontractor’s past performance. Corrective action was taken. 2013
• GAO Bid Protest alleging improper technical evaluation, improper trade-off analysis, and constitutional violations. The agency immediately moved to take corrective action without further litigation. 2012.
• GAO Bid Protest alleging agency improperly excluded a contractor from competitive range. Agency took corrective action. 2012
• GAO protest alleging abuse of discretion from the Contracting Officer, improper withdrawal from the competitive range and improper past performance determinations. Agency decided to take corrective action. 2012
• GAO Protest alleging agency violated Service Contract Act because it made a significant change to the solicitation requirements after the competitive range was formed. However, after the significant change, the VA never allowed the original bidders to participate. After filing to GAO, the agency agreed and re-advertised the newly changed requirement. 2012.
• GAO Bid Protest: VA published full and open solicitation, established a competitive range, then substantially amended and reduced the requirements without providing original bidders a chance to rebid. Agency agreed to correct the problem by letting the original bidders amend proposals.2012
• Agency Bid Protest where the awardee violated the Buy American Act. Awardee did not meet the US manufacturing requirement. The protest was sustained. 2011

SBA Size Protests, and Appeals to SBA Office of Hearing and Appeals

• SBA Size Appeal : Appeal of SBA size Determination in a Construction Contract. The SBA’s size determination was clearly erroneous and contrary to the prior decision of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) in Size Appeal of Contego Environmental, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6054 ). OHA granted the appeal is granted and the size determination was reversed in part and remanded in part. Size Appeal of Contego Environmental, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6073 (September 2020)
• OHA SBA Size Appeal. Appeal of SBA Size Determination concluding that the Awardee is a small business under the size standard associated with the procurement. HWI Gear, Inc. (Appellant), which had previously protested Mechanix’s size, contends that the size determination is clearly erroneous and requests that SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) reverse or remand. OHA granted the appeal in part and was remanded to the Area Office for further review. (September 2020)
• OHA Size Appeal. Represented Appellant in a SBA size determination,. SBA ruled that the awardee was small under the procurement. However, successfully challenged Ostensible Subcontractor Rule as to if the subcontractor will perform the “primary and vital” contract requirements. 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4).OHA granted the appeal in part and remained back to the SBA Area Office.  (Docket SBA No. SIZ-6054) May 2020. 
• OHA Size Appeal. Represented intervenor and awardee against appellant. Appellant challenged SBA  Size Determination alleging that awardee was not a small business and affiliated with other business entities. (Docket No. SIZ-5839). June 29, 2017.
• Size Determination. Final decision date by the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Hearing and Appeals, denying the Appeal and affirming the SBA’s Size Determination issued on February 19, 2016 (referenced next) (Docket No. SIZ-5737). May 9, 2016.
• Size Determination. Final Size Determination date by the SBA, affirming the size status of the Awardee on a small business set aside issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), for a $30,218,845.00, Contract for Mobile Video Surveillance Systems (Size Determination No. 2-2015-126).  February 19, 2016.
• Size Determination. Final Size Determination date by the SBA, finding that the Awardee of a small business set aside was too large for the $39,563,270.00, Contract issued by the U.S. Department of Labor for the Operation of a Job Corps Center.  Prior to this finding, our firm challenged the size status with the SBA, which initially found the Awardee other than small under one affiliation analysis. The Awardee appealed to OHA and OHA remanded the case to the SBA to review the other affiliation challenges raised.  The second review led to this September 9, 2016, finding of affiliation.  September 9, 2016.
• Size Determination. Final Size Determination date by the SBA, affirming the size status of the Awardee on a small business set aside issued by the U.S. General Services Administration (Public Building Services) for a $15,048,555.92, Contract for Operation and Maintenance Services (Size Determination No. 05-2016-005). November 25, 2015.
•  SDVOSB. Final Acceptance date by the United States Department of Veteran Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation, certifying an applicant for SDVOSB participation after an initial denial and the subsequent filing of a response (Issued without a Determination number). October 16, 2015.
• Size Appeal of EnviroServices & Training Center, LLC., SBA No. SIZ-5517 (2013). The firm represented awardee, Alpha Technical Services, and defended against the appeal. Appellant argued that its emails to the Contracting Officer constituted a valid Size Protest. SBAOHA disagreed and also ruled that the appellant did not make a showing that the size determination was clearly erroneous.
• Size Appeal of Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5372 (2012) (vacates Area Office decision; Area Office improperly analyzed 5 year-old violation of “3-in-2” rule not raised in size protest and without giving notice of its concern to the protested firm; violation of “3-in-2” rule (particularly by 8(a) BD mentor and protege when the joint venture in question is not even involved in the instant procurement) does not automatically mean general affiliation exists, but might necessitate further inquiry).
• Size Appeal of Accent Service Co., SBA No. SIZ-5237 (2011) (Master Subcontracting Agreement did not establish a joint venture and did not establish that one firm was the ostensible subcontractor of the other; the fact that contested firm often awarded subcontracts to another firm did not establish economic dependence, if anything it made the other firm dependent on contested firm).
• Size Appeal of Argus and Black, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5204 (2011) (overturns Area Office’s finding of affiliation through economic dependence because it was based only on one, small contract and did not satisfy the conditions for such a finding).
• Appeal of SBA decision to SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. SBA adversely decided that small business violated the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule and was therefore affiliated with its subcontractor. The main issue was whether the subcontractor was in control of the project. SBAOHA reversed SBA’s ruling. 2010.

Boards of Contract Appeals (Claims & Terminations)

• CBCA 4026 (May 5, 2020) (Appeal of total denial of contractors claims where contract did not specify any particular method of aseptic cleaning, Government’s direction that changed scope of work. Court granted appellant contractor one of the two claims. The Court denied the Government’s counterclaims because each ignored agreements or understandings reached between contractor and Government.
• ASBCA No. 61875  (2019) – Appeal of Termination for Default – Small Business Appealed Government’s termination decision. Converted to Termination for Convenience. 
• Final Settlement dismissal on two claims with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA File Nos. 3870 and 4465). March 1, 2016.
• Settlement between Prime and Subcontractor for past due payments, after the culmination of Subcontractor pass through claims and the Prime’s request for declaratory relief at the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA File No. 3450). February 2, 2015.
•   Final Settlement on appeal before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals on a Army default termination (ASBCA No. 59974).  June 23, 2015:
•  Final Settlement on a claim submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Docket No. 13-203C). September 4, 2014.
•   Final Settlement on claim submitted to the U.S. Department of Defense (Department of the Navy-Navy Exchange Service Command) (Claim under Contract No. NNA250-07-C-0058).July 18, 2014.
•  Final Settlement on a claim submitted to the U.S. Department of Defense (Department of Army) before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Docket No. 13-251C). April 8, 2014:
• Subcontractor claims through the prime contractor.  2014 The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”) ruled in favor of contractor Kiewit-Turner, the prime contract, after a finding of material breach on the part of the government, allowing Kiewit-Turner to stop work on a VA Hospital being constructed in Aurora, Colorado, which was supposed to be completed in May 2015. Watson & Associates represented one of the subcontractors for flow through claims. See full decision. 2014.
• Appeal of agency claims denial. Agency denied client’s claim for work performed overseas. ASBCA sustained the appeal. Court granted damages of over $750,000. (2013)
• Appeal of contractor claim with agency. Contractor was terminated from contract that was then awarded to another contractor. Appeal to ASBCA. Case settled. (2012).
• Appeal of termination for default to ASBCA. The contractor was terminated due actions to which the agency was aware. Estoppel and Waiver were at issue. Contractor and Agency settled the matter. (2012).
• Department of the Army failed to pay invoices to small business for products shipped to agency. Agency claimed non-compliance with the contract. Agency reversed itself after supplying of documents proving a different result. (2012.

8a Certification

Highlights of 8(a) Certification Acceptance

Clients from the following geographic regions have relied on the firm’s 8(a) consulting to secure acceptance into the 8(a) program:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• California
• Florida
• Georgia
• Virginia
• Maryland
• Texas
• New Hampshire
• Michigan

• SBA Request for Reconsideration. Final decision date by the SBA certifying an applicant for 8(a) program participation after the denial of 8(a) acceptance and the subsequent filing of a Request for Reconsideration (Issued without a Size Determination number). August 27, 2015.
• SBA OHA Appeal. Final decision date by the SBA’s Office of Hearing and Appeals, vacating the SBA’s Size Determination that an Awardee was too large to participate in the 8(a) Business Development Program and remanding the case back to the Area Office for reevaluation (Docket No. SIZ-5558). May 15, 2014:
• 8a Request for Reconsideration approved after guiding client to provide SBA with relevant support and evidence to overcome economic disadvantage requirement. (2012)
• 8a Request for Reconsideration approved supplementing the initial application with more defined narratives and supporting evidence to overcome both social and economic disadvantage requirements. (2011)
• SBA denial of 8(a) application was approved on reconsideration. The SBA initially denied the 8(a) application due to information for which the SBA concluded that they were not convinced by the preponderance of the evidence to allow the company into the 8(a) Program. After revising the initial application and supplying corroborative evidence, the SBA approved the application. (2009)

Suspension and Debarment

• 2020. Successfully represented employee recommended for debarment. Successfully convinced SDO against debarment.
• December 2019. The IG alleged client to have mischarged for over $450,000.00 over 4 years. The agency proposed client for debarment for 3 years. Watson’s attorneys with the Suspension and Debarment Official and after the firm’s presentation and submissions the Suspension and Debarment Official agreed to  to terminate the proposed debarment action.
• January 2019 to December 2019.  Represented contractors and individuals in various cases involving mischarging time, counterfeit parts, poor performance, adverse IG investigations, false statements, wrong charge codes, bribery, serious violations of consumer protections, failure to pay debts, conflicts of interest, refurbished parts, affiliate matters, charging for non-work activities, overbilling and labor mischarging.
• Convinced Department of the Army to withdraw proposed debarment based upon Watson’s response on behalf  of client. (October 2016)
• Represented large business with allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Achieved successful plan from the Board to allow contractor to restructure its operations. (2014)
• Represented small business that was targeted for debarment. Negotiated a complete reversal based upon the alleged facts. (2013).

Contractor Performance Assessment Ratings (CPARs/PPIRS)

• Final Settlement on contractor’s CPARs appeal. June 9, 2015. 
•  Final Agreement on Request for Reconsideration of contractor’s CPARs ratings. April 21, 2015.

Employment Defense Colorado

• Defended employer in an EEOC employment discrimination action and received a “No Probable Cause” determination from the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies.  August 15, 2016:
• Defended employer in an employment discrimination action, resulting in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission terminating the claim. February 17, 2016. 
•  Represented an employee in a breach of contract dispute through to Final Settlement.  October 6, 2015. 

Other Civil Disputes

• Breach of Contract. Homeowners Association beached services contract. Settled October 2016
• Termination for default and breach of contract, Colorado. Settled September 2016.
• Breach of contract. Automotive dealer failed to comply with material terms of the contract. Dealer settled the dispute. 2015.
• Breach of contract dispute. Prime contractor violated terms of subcontractor agreement. Prime contractor settled the dispute. 2015. 
• Agency claims against contractor for overpayment of $987,000. After review of contract and agency records, agency reduced claim against the contractor to $0. (2010)
• Small Business Subcontracting Plan statute was violated by prime contractor. After initial award, the prime contractor did not follow the legal requirement to comply with small business subcontracting plan goals. Watson & Associates took a legislative approach to Congress which included the SBA and agency. Parties came to an amicable resolution. (2009)
• Termination for convenience: Settled contractor claims with agency due to the support of substantial evidence of contractors cost. (2011)
• Business partnership disputes between partners. One partner ousted the other and refused to return the initial investment. Court ruled for Plaintiff and awarded damages. 2008.

Call Watson & Associates, LLC bid protest lawyers to assist you with all government contract disputes. Call Our Washington, DC office at 202-827-9750 or Corporate Office Toll-Free 1-866-601-5518.