NOTE: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF UNIQUE FACTORS, AND DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT SIMILAR RESULTS FOR FUTURE CASES.
FH+H attorneys, including Partner Jennifer Huber and Senior Associate Marlena Ewald, helped close a multi-million dollar Other Transaction Agreement for a unique prototype project with the U.S. Government.
Other Transaction Agreement, or Other Transaction Authority, (OTA) contracts give the Department of Defense the ability to move forward with certain prototype and research projects without going through the traditional acquisition process, which can take years to complete. 10 U.S.C. § 2371b.
“Instead of undergoing a more rigid procurement process with the potential risk of a protest, OTAs allow for a much quicker and flexible avenue of procurement,” Ms. Huber said. “Contractors are able to innovate and create with today’s technology, not the technology of years ago when the solicitation process was started.”
The FH+H Government Contracts team is able to guide contractors through the applicable rules and regulations related to OTAs and other contracts in order to enable corporate success. Read about the group here.
The FH+H Government Contracts team, including Partner Milt Johns and Associate Rachel Leahey, successfully prosecuted a bid protest for a client that resulted in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustaining the protest and recommending that the Agency award a contract to the client and pay the client's attorneys' fees.
Bringing the protest required careful argument interpreting a key passage of the solicitation. As the GAO found, the solicitation interpretation offered by the Agency was "not unreasonable." Decision, p.6.
However, as the GAO also recognized, we "advance[d] an alternative interpretation of the solicitation" on behalf of our client that the GAO also found to be "reasonable." Id. This was a critical finding, as it was only by successfully countering the Agency's solicitation interpretation that the GAO ultimately decided in favor of our client.
The GAO's decision is public and available for download here.
FH+H recently helped a defense contractor export sensitive defense articles to the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region.
The contractor was selected by a strategic U.S. ally to provide such articles and required assistance with navigating the regulatory hurdles that it faced.
Leveraging its experience and relationships in the export compliance arena, FH+H coordinated with the Department of State and the Department of Defense to help ensure that an export license was issued, and that the license's provisos both protected U.S. national security interests and allowed FH+H's client to satisfy its contractual obligations overseas.
"U.S. hardware and services remain in high demand across the Middle East and North Africa," FH+H International Trade + Transactions Partner Adam Munitz said. "And we will always utilize every skill we have to expedite their delivery and grow our clients' international footprints, all while preserving their compliance with U.S. laws and regulations."
In a case brought by federal law enforcement officers against their employers, Partner Kevin Byrnes, Senior Associate Samuel Adelmann, and Associate Rachel Leahey filed several actions and appeals against a federal agency for consistently mistreating Military Reservists on promotional and career advancement opportunities within the agency.
FH+H lawyers have argued that numerous Reservists in the agency were subject to anti-military animus and subject to retaliation and reprisal after he submitted evidence establishing what they submitted claims under USERRA (Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act).
The supervisors against whom the clients brought the complaint repeatedly failed to promote them, investigated the employees for making complaints and assigned the employees menial assignments
Read about FH+H’s extensive practice on USERRA here.
The client, who is of Mexican descent, was repeatedly attacked because of her ethnicity. For example, on the first day of her employment, she found an oversized sombrero in her office.
The employee was then passed over for promotion, for a position to which she was eminently qualified for an employee who claimed to be a clergy member, and who ministered to the recommending supervisor, who apparently shared his religious faith.
During the discovery phase of the case, it was further revealed that the selectee and the recommending supervisor had exchanged emails professing their love for one another.
The case is currently being litigated before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Read about FH+H’s Litigation and Investigations practice group here.
FH+H lawyers are helping two employees seek reasonable accommodations in the workplace in response to allegations that their employer had been punishing the clients for disabilities related to traumatic brain injury.
Our firm filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requiring the employer to remove derogatory comments from the two employees’ performance reviews that reference their disabilities.
FH+H is also seeking reasonable accommodations in the workplace, including telecommuting, use of an electronic calendar, written instructions for work issues, allowances for the employees to make medical appointments, and the implementation of quiet spaces in the workplace.
Read about FH+H’s Employment Law practice group here.
A federal employee was cleared of all allegations of wrongdoing, including creating a hostile work environment and misuse of government equipment, after FH+H Partner Kevin Byrnes presented evidence that religious discrimination was the motivating factor behind complaints by fellow employees.
The client, a practicing Muslim, is a former Marine and converted to Islam when he served in combat in Afghanistan. In his civilian position, he participated in daily prayers, grew a beard, and supported the local Mosque and the Islamic community on the military installation where he worked.
Relying on strained accusations that the employee was too harsh on subordinates and created a “hostile work environment”, subordinates made allegations that the employee had engaged in misuse of government equipment, threats, and harassment. The employee was recommended for suspension and placed under investigation by the Inspector General.
Mr. Byrnes’ opposed the personnel action and the IG inquiry. In submissions to the agency, Mr. Byrnes presented compelling evidence that the employee had been subject to discrimination, harassment, and reprisal for his religious practices. Thanks to Mr. Byrnes, the employee was cleared of all claims of wrongdoing by the Inspector General. His proposed adverse action was mitigated, nevertheless, believing there was no basis for any charge, Mr. Byrnes filed an EEO claim for the employee, which is pending.
To read about Mr. Byrnes’ experience and capabilities, see here.
FH+H Partner Kevin Byrnes successfully defended a U.S. Army civilian doctor against a termination action by his agency, by establishing that the doctor’s medical condition was responsible for what had been perceived as misconduct and by showing that the agency had engaged in numerous due process and procedural violations in bringing its action.
Rather than being fired, the client received a minor punishment for what was in effect an oversight on certain travel submissions and was cleared of more extensive charges of fraud and false statement. He also preserved his medical license and referred his own treatment to the Inspector General.
To read about Mr. Byrnes’ experience and capabilities, see here.
FH+H Files Contract Appeals at Court of Federal Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) for ClientAugust 22, 2018
The FH+H Government Contracts team, including Partner Milt Johns and Associate Rachel Leahey, filed two appeals on behalf of a client, one at the Court of Federal Claims, and the other at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). Both appeals involve the same client and same contracting office but different contract vehicles.
The appeal to the Court of Federal Claims seeks funds in excess of $6 million related to two requests for equitable adjustment (REAs) that were denied by the contracting officer. The appeal to the ASBCA involves a request for contract interpretation related to a unilateral delivery schedule imposed on the client by the contracting officer.
Thanks to the help of FH+H attorneys, a government contractor client became eligible for an award after initially being excluded from the competition. The client then won the contract after entering into negotiations with the government.
A client that submitted a bid to a federal agency was notified by that agency that they had been excluded from the competitive range in the procurement and would not be eligible for an award.
The Government Contracts team at FH+H, including Partner Milt Johns and Law Clerk Emily Spence, filed a protest on the client’s behalf, in response to which the agency agreed to reinstate the client to the competitive range.
The client participated in the negotiations and submitted revised pricing, ultimately winning the contract.