Breaking News:

We were successful in arguing before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that the government violated CICA by issuing a cardinal change to a competitor's contract.  Almost immediately after the award of a contract to a competitor, the Court overturned this illegal action. 
(Cardinal Maintenance Service, Inc., v. U.S. and Navales Enterprises, Inc., 04-94C, November 22, 2004)

        Our Firm specializes in getting the job done and getting the dispute settled without expensive litigation.  Some of the following examples should suffice from some of the disasters that we have rescued our clients from. These cases were settled prior to expensive litigation.

1. Two explosives manufacturers were defaulted.  Based upon the Government's allegations that they could not meet the plans and specifications, through discovery we found that the Government relaxed the plans and specifications for the replacement contractor.  Both claims were resolved to the contractor's favor
   
   
2. An electronics manufacturer contracted us after his multi million dollar contract had been had been Terminated for Default by the DOD at which point he had over a million dollars of inventory on his floor.  The advise that he had gotten prior to his contacting our firm was that he should aggressively litigate the T for D.  However after a review we developed an opinion that based on certain actions and inactions of the Government, the company had a large equitable adjustment claim that should be filed before anything else was done.  With the help of the company a large REA was filed and negotiations were entered in with the Government.  As a result the T for D was rescinded and an equitable adjustment was made to the contract.  Thus, we got the job done based on our experience and knowledge.
   
   
3. A client contacted us after he was unable to get any relief on a disastrous contract that he had with the Government of Pakistan that was largely funded by the US Government..  The company had spent a large sum of money on legal fees but no comprehensive Request for Equitable Adjustment had been submitted.  We took all the files and records and with the help of the company we compiled a large compressive REA and we were able to obtain a settlement.
   
   
4. A large construction firm in Buffalo New York contacted us concerning a state contract in which they had already suffered a large loss on.  The state was taken the position that our client was delinquent in its performance.  We made a FOIL request for all of the files pertaining to the contract and  uncovered that the state either knew of should have known that the design was defective prior to contact award.  We then with the help of the company submitted a large Claim and the matter was successfully resolved.
   
   
5. An electronics  manufacturer contracted us after his contract was terminated for Convenience and had some inventory sitting on his floor.  The Government asserted the position that he should only be entitled to only First Article cost.  We were able to obtain all the Governments files and we successfully argued that the Government through various actions and inactions waived the First Article limitation cause resulting in a settlement.
   
   
6. A manufacturer contracted us in Michigan that had lost a large amount of money producing ammunition boxes for the Government.  After some litigation with the Government but before any hearing we were able to resolve the matter, giving our client some relief.
   
   
7. A client had contracted us in Florida who had a contract with the DOD and the DOD was alleging an overpayment.  We were able to offset the alleged overpayment  with a claim that  the client had and we were able to wipe out the alleged overpayment. Furthermore, the Government ended up making payment to our client.
   
   
   
8. A fortune 500 company had a large subcontract with a large Government Prime Contractor and the subcontract contained a Economic Price Adjustment Clause.  The company contacted us after another law firm had fought the credit by arguing that a different index had applied.  The Prime contractor was withholding payments arguing that the indices went down and therefore, a credit was due.  The Contract had also been changed, delayed and disrupted and with the help of the company we submitted an REA and we were able to negotiate away most of the credit

Case Cites

Nautica Intern., Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P., 5 F.Supp.2d 1333 (S.D.Fla., Mar 17, 1998) (NO. 97‑1772‑CIV‑GOLD) 

Creative Elec. v. U.S., 1997 WL 151779 (N.D.N.Y., Mar 28, 1997) (NO. 95‑CV‑302 RSP/GJD)

Creative Elec., Inc.v. U.S., 1995 WL 494002 (N.D.N.Y., Aug 16, 1995) (NO. 95‑CV‑0302(RSP/GJD))

Bellnier v. Agway Ins. Companies, 181 A.D.2d 985, 586 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Mem) (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., Mar 13, 1992) (NO. 12)

ASBCA, GOV‑CONT ╢87,086, Commercial Products & Engineering Company, Inc., (Nov. 27, 1996)

ASBCA, GOV‑CONT ╢86,992, Mid‑America Engineering and Manufacturing, (Sep. 11, 1996)

ASBCA, GOV‑CONT ╢86,845, Commercial Products & Engineering Company, Inc., (June 24, 1996)

ASBCA, GOV‑CONT ╢97,805, Kirk Brothers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., (Aug. 19, 1992)

GSBCA,   GOV‑CONT ╢87,449, Technical Systems Associates, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, (June 06, 1997)

GSBCA, GOV‑CONT ╢86,21, Cardinal Maintenance Service, Inc. v. General Services Administration, (June 28, 1995)

GSBCA, GOV‑CONT ╢86,040, Cardinal Maintenance Service, Inc. v. General Services Administration, (Mar. 16, 1995)

VABCA,   GOV‑CONT ╢86,915, Suburban Middlesex Insulation, Inc., (Aug. 02, 1996) 

CGEN,   12 CGEN ╢109,680, GZA Remediation, Inc., (Oct. 03, 1996) 

CGEN,   9 CGEN ╢107,979, 7 Nautica International, Inc., (Dec. 15, 1993)

- Back to Top -