Government spending and procurement have reached historic levels, creating unprecedented complexities and issues for government contractors. Buchanan's government contracts litigators are adept at guiding clients through government contracting questions of all kinds and in providing top-notch litigation support where claims and disputes arise in this process.

The Government Contracts Litigation Practice has successfully litigated and settled claims in a wide variety of areas, including claims for recovery of various types of overhead, G & A costs and profits; claims for constructive changes based on defective drawings and specifications, interference by inspectors, and delay and disruption; claims for government misappropriation of the contractor's proprietary data; bid protests involving change in or misuse of evaluation factors, improper sole source awards, defects in solicitations, and unfair treatment of bidders; claims for recovery of termination for convenience settlement costs and profit; bid protests involving improper interpretation of statutes and regulations; and claims for breach of contract including failure to pay and breach of the implied duties of cooperation and fair dealing, and failure to enable performance.

Recently, on behalf of a client, our Government Contracts Litigation Practice won a landmark decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that resulted in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers being required to re-evaluate awards for services under the contested contract in a number of regions throughout the country, allowing our client and others the opportunity to receive additional awards.

Other examples of the team's significant government contracts litigation successes include:

• Persuading the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take corrective action after it incorrectly evaluated price proposals for the Advanced Contract Initiative Debris Removal and Reduction contract, valued up to $2.5 billion over five years. The corrective action came after the attorneys assisted a client in filing a substantial protest with the Government Accountability Office highlighting a multitude of flaws in the evaluation process, including unbalanced pricing, unequal discussions and a failure to follow the stated price evaluation plan. The corps elected to acknowledge and correct the flaws at the start of litigation, rather than to continue through the lengthy protest procedure.
• Successfully settling a multimillion-dollar claim for excessive costs incurred by the client in relation to the procurement of the bonding requirements necessary to contract with the Army Corps for debris removal services in Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina. The claim argued that the bond was priced at a rate far greater than what was contemplated by the client when preparing its bid, and as the party with superior knowledge of how bonds for such large contract amounts are priced in the industry, it was the responsibility of the government to reimburse the client for these excessively high bond premium costs.
• Achieving a favorable decision following a three-day trial and extensive post-trial briefing that resulted in the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals handing a client a complete victory on two claims under the client's large, emergency contract with the Army Corps for debris removal services in Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina.
• Obtaining a ruling from the Court of Federal Claims that a permanent injunction against the Defense Logistics Agency in Philadelphia would be immediately forthcoming if the Army did not award a contract to our client, resulting in the award of that and another contract in settlement of the suit.
• Obtaining a ruling from the Court of Federal Claims that the Air Force had breached its duty to a small business contractor in favor of a mega-company in a truly "David and Goliath" setting.
• Successfully intervening to maintain the award of a major contract to our client for the sale of search and rescue helicopters to the United States Coast Guard.
• Successfully asserted the government contractor defense in a major product liability case in Federal Court in Mississippi.