Landscape Management System, Inc., B-423523.5, B-423523.6 (2026)
Successfully represented the intervenor-awardee, NOREAS, Inc., in a GAO bid protest involving a contract awarded by the Navy’s Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) for hazardous waste services in Guam.
Arcadis Pond JV, B-423372; B-423373 (2025)
Successfully represented the protester in a GAO protest challenge of the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) decision to exclude Arcadis Pond JV from further consideration under solicitations No. W912GB24R0018 and W912GB24R0020 for various military construction projects in Europe. The USACE took voluntary corrective action by “reinstating Arcadis Pond JV in the price negotiation phase of these acquisitions.”
MAG DS Corporation- dba MAG Aerospace, B-423820 (2025)
Successfully represented the protester in a GAO protest challenge to the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command evaluation of proposals and resulting award decision in a contract for systems engineering and technical assistance support services for Program Executive Office Soldier. The Army took voluntary corrective action as a result of the protest.
CIMA JV; G-W Management Services, LLC; Tidewater-PEM JV LLC, B-422813, et al. (2024)
Successfully represented the intervenor-awardee, Edifice Services JV, LLC, in a GAO bid protest involving a contract awarded by the Navy’s Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) for construction services within the NAVFAC Washington area of responsibility.
G-W Management Services, LLC, B-421886, et al. (2023)
Successfully represented the intervenor-awardee, Encon Desbuild JV3, LLC, in a GAO bid protest involving a contract awarded by the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for construction services at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia.
Facility Services Management, Inc., B-420102.3 (2022)
Successfully represented the intervenor-awardee, Valiant Government Services, LLC, in a GAO bid protest involving a task order issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for operation and maintenance services supporting medical facilities at Travis Air Force Base, California.
Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, B-419687, B-419687.2 (2021)
Successfully represented the intervenor-awardee, Hensel Phelps Construction Company, in a GAO bid protest involving a task order contract awarded by the Department of the Navy for repair, design, and conversion of existing facilities into administrative facilities in Oahu, Hawaii.
Markit! Forestry Management, LLC—Costs, B-417910.3 (2020)
Successfully represented the protester in a request for reimbursement of reasonable costs of filing and pursuing a protest when the Forest Service unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.
CJW Contractors, Inc., ASBCA 63228, 23-1 BCA ¶38,272 (Jan. 23, 2023), recon den’d , 23-1 BCA ¶38,402 (July 17, 2023)
Successfully represented a prime contractor in a dispute with the Navy arising from the replacement of the heating system in Buildings 3, 4, and 5, at the Naval Support Activity in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. The contractor sought to recover additional costs incurred from furnishing and installing 52 20-foot-long steel I beams in Building 5 as a result of the Navy failing to (1) include a structural steel section or require steel I beams in Building 5’s specifications despite explicitly referencing steel W and S beams, and including structural steel sections in the Buildings 3 and 4 specifications, and (2) provide structural and mechanical design drawings free from latent ambiguities and contradicting design details.
The board found the contractor’s interpretation was reasonable, noting that it would be improper to read in the steel I beams as a requirement when the Navy failed to clearly indicate as such in the contract documents and specifications. The board also found that the drawings contained latent ambiguities because there was only one drawing depicting the building’s roof structure, but did not include or refer to any I beams. The sole reference to or depiction of I beams in Building 5 was buried in a tiny detail on a separate drawing. As a result, the board found this was not an ambiguity “sufficiently glaring to trigger” the contractor to inquire before submitting a bid. The Navy then filed, and the board denied, a motion for reconsideration.