Bob Symon is well known nationally in both the public and private sectors of the construction industry. For close to 35 years, Bob has represented dozens and dozens of general contractors on complex construction projects to navigate claims against owners or resolve disputes downstream with subcontractors. While settlement in a cost-effective manner is always his goal, his success rate when litigation or arbitration is necessary is virtually unmatched as evidenced by a number of decisions both reported and unreported.
Types of projects that have been the subject matter of claims Bob has handled over the years include office buildings, military housing units, multi-use facilities, data centers, courthouses, prisons, condominiums, hotels, wastewater treatment plants, laboratories, test facilities, manufacturing plants, solar power plants, clinics, hospitals, hangars, and roadways. Of note, he also has a large number of historical renovation and preservation projects under his belt that make his construction experience unique -- including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Capitol Dome, the Jefferson Memorial, and the Watergate Hotel, to name a few.
Bob’s tenaciousness for success is demonstrated by his appellate victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of Metcalf Construction Company, Inc. The Metcalf case involved a $50 million contract to design and build 212 duplex housing units for the U.S. Navy on a Marine Corps base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. The reported decision addresses multiple failures by the federal government to properly administer a construction contract. Due to unanticipated soil conditions and other issues, made worse by the failure of the government to administer the contract fairly and according to its terms, Metcalf Construction spent more than $76 million to finish the project. The Federal Circuit clarified important legal principles that are critical to the fair administration of “all” contracts with the federal government. The decision also alleviated the concerns of many in the government contract community who were very critical of the lower court’s ruling and its negative impact on the construction industry if permitted to stand.
Another success on his resume includes the litigation of a complex construction defect claim for Moreland Corporation involving a VA medical clinic lease in a multi-party lawsuit in Las Vegas, Nevada. First, he negotiated a favorable settlement for Moreland, the client-owner of the facility, against the designer and contractor of the project for design and construction defects. Next, the underlying defects spawned a termination of this same lease by the VA. Moreland filed a wrongful termination claim at the United States Court of Federal Claims. In another reported case, Bob was able to get the termination overturned and obtained an $18 million judgment against the government for damages related to the lease.
In yet another reported victory for Bob at the federal court level, his interpretation of a contract provision for Jacobs Engineering was upheld on the application of a cost-sharing provision included in a research and development contract for a Department of Energy project in Morgantown, WV, after the contract was terminated for the convenience of the government. Again, the hotly contested issue resulted in a multimillion-dollar recovery for the client.
Other recent successes, although unreported, include a highly favorable ruling for Jacobs Engineering/Stantec JV, after a 24-day bench trial (and extensive briefing) before the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland. Cherry Hill Construction, a subsidiary of Tutor Perini, filed a complaint against the JV for breach of contract and professional negligence related to the design and construction of a portion of I-564 in Virginia known as the Intermodal Connector located adjacent to the Port and Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia. The suit sought over $23 million in damages against the JV for additional construction costs and delay stemming from many different issues allegedly caused by design errors and omissions to the roadways, ramps, and appurtenances for the project. The JV counterclaimed for approximately $5.5 million, which principally consisted of unpaid engineering services rendered during the life of the project and offset by Cherry Hill for their claimed damages. The court issued a 113-page decision finding entitlement for the JV in the amount of $5.1 million and only offset a measly $1.2 million for Cherry Hill’s claims versus the $23 million in damages it sought.
Furthermore, Bob has enjoyed considerable success for clients prosecuting and defending bid protests involving construction and/or engineering services (either pre-award or post award) at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the United States Court of Federal Claims. At this point in his career, he has represented clients in over 200 protests. In one of the largest contracts ever overturned at GAO, he successfully represented a disappointed bidder in a protest involving a $22.8 billion contract awarded by the Department of Energy for the consolidation of management and operating activities at two nuclear facilities. Bob helped an internationally known engineering firm, Jacobs Technology, defend a contract award decision by the Air Force at Hanscomb Air Force Base worth $700 million. Moreover, Bob has also had exceptional success at the United States Court of Federal Claims overturning erroneous decisions by GAO as demonstrated by several reported decisions.