Government Projects
We have represented the Atlanta Housing Authority in three separate cases involving termination for convenience of Housing Authority contractors and consultants. We represented a general contractor in contesting a default termination and making claims for termination costs. The case was settled when the default termination was converted to a termination for convenience.
We have represented a general contractor on four separate government projects administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. These design and construction matters included subcontractor issues and claims against the federal government.
We represented a general contractor building modular housing for the Air Force on six different Air Force bases. The claim involved delay and disruption, and was administered by the Corps of Engineers. After preparing the claim, we were able to settle it for several million dollars.
We represented a general contractor out of Columbus, Georgia over a period of several years on approximately fifteen government claims on different government projects, including the construction of a headquarters building, officer candidate school, enlisted men's barracks, etc. Most of these claims involved the Corps of Engineers, and all were settled without trial.
We represented another general contractor out of Columbus, Georgia on ten different claims on various projects throughout the southeastern United States, most being built for the Savannah Region Corps of Engineers. These claims arose out of the construction of commissaries, barracks buildings and the headquarters building at the Kings Bay Submarine base in Kings Bay, Georgia. The claims involved delay, disruption, differing site conditions and the use of proprietary specifications, and were settled without need for trial.
We provided advice and counsel to a trade contractor on an $8 million subcontract for the Supercollider project in Waxahatchie, Texas.
We represented a general contractor in a claim against the General Services Administration ("GSA"), when the general contractor was not allowed to substitute a subcontractor pursuant to GSA bid listing rules. In this case, we obtained a decision from the Claims Court in the client's favor, and this decision is often cited as precedent for the proposition that a government contracting officer may not act in a capricious manner.
We represented a general contractor in preparing, presenting and resolving a claim against the GSA. The project involved the renovation of a major federal office building in downtown Chicago, Illinois. In that case, we brought the claim in the U. S. Claims Court, and dealt with Justice Department attorneys. Motions were filed, and a major precedent was established in the Federal Court of Appeals interpreting the Contract Disputes Act requirement concerning the time for bringing an appeal in the absence of a decision by the contracting officer. The case was settled prior to trial on favorable terms.
We represented a Chicago general contractor on a project arising out of the construction of a military dormitory. The case was tried on the issue of entitlement in the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The Board issued a decision in favor of the contractor, and the liability questions were settled favorably for the contractor.
We represented a Boston general contractor in a claim against the United States Coast Guard arising out of the construction of a vessel maintenance facility. The project resulted in several claims, including a delay and disruption claim, and many consolidated change order claims. All of the claims were negotiated successfully with the Coast Guard contracting officer and Coast Guard counsel, with the result that the contractor came out very well on a difficult project.
We represented a general contractor in preparing and presenting a claim to the GSA arising out of the construction of a federal office building in downtown Boston. Our firm, working with the client, prepared the scheduling and cost analysis and presented the claim. The claim was settled with a substantial award to the client.
We represented a mechanical subcontractor in preparing and presenting a claim against the general contractor that was passed through to the Veterans Administration ("VA") arising out of the construction of a hospital in Massachusetts. The claim was favorably resolved in mediation, without need for a trial.
We represented a subcontractor in a cooperative effort between subcontractors and a large general contractor presenting a claim against the GSA. The project involved refurbishing a federal building. We negotiated directly with chief counsel for the GSA in Washington, D.C. All claims were resolved favorably, recouping the general contractor's and subcontractors' costs plus a reasonable profit.
We represented a mechanical subcontractor in a claim which was presented to a general contractor arising out of the construction of a VA hospital. Working with the client, our firm prepared and submitted the claims which led to an early and favorable settlement.
We represented a general contractor in preparing and presenting a claim to the Corps of Engineers in Savannah, arising out of the construction of a dam on the Savannah River. The claim arose from the discovery of a differing site condition which required the contractor to drive sheet piling for cofferdams much deeper than anticipated, and resulted in a delay to the construction. The claim was settled, after a government audit, for approximately 95 percent of the contractor's requested damages.
We represented a mechanical subcontractor in a dispute arising out of the construction of a VA hospital in West Roxbury, Massachusetts.
Finally, our firm has authored a 300 page text entitled Government Construction Contracting, published by Federal Publications, concerning federal procurement regulations and law governing construction of federal projects.
|
 |
|