Settlements and Cases

Our Firm’s objective is to get the job done using our experience and knowledge, either through settling the dispute before incurring expensive litigation costs, or if litigation becomes necessary, we have also been successful in getting clients’ cases resolved after conducting discovery, before an expensive trial. When a Government entity would not reach a settlement with our client, we have often been successful in obtaining a decision or verdict in the client's favor. The following are some examples of cases in which we were able to reach a settlement with the opposing party and rescue our clients from the disasters they faced:

  • We represented a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business whose contract was halted for many years because of various changes to the plans and specifications. Our firm was able to claim that the contract was constructively terminated for convenience, which subsequently lead to a formal termination for convenience, enabling the contractor to be paid for his costs.
  • We represented a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business regarding the construction of a large parking garage, which resulted in substantial damages. We were able to isolate the costs, and submit the proper claims, which resulted in a settlement with the Government.
  • We represented an 8(a) contractor who suffered large overruns while performing a contract for underground storage sites. We were able to isolate the costs and submit the proper claims, which resulted in a settlement.
  • We represented a small, upstate New York not-for-profit company employing a number of people with disabilities. This company had a contract to supply goods to the Government with several options. The Government elected to not exercise the last option, and the contractor was stuck with a massive amount of inventory. After investigation, it was found that the particular item being supplied was on a procurement list which mandated that the Government buy its product from this small business. A claim was filed and the Government settled the matter.
  • Two Government contractor explosive manufacturers were defaulted based upon the Government's allegations that they could not meet the plans and specifications. Through discovery, we found out that the Government had relaxed the plans and specifications for the replacement contractor. Both cases were settled.
  • An electronics manufacturer contacted us after its multi-million dollar contract was terminated for default, at which point over a million dollars’ worth of inventory was tied up. Upon investigation, it was further determined that the Government had supplied defective drawings and specifications. A request/claim was filed, and the contract was re-instated, along with an equitable adjustment.
  • 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 U.S. Government. The company had spent a large sum of money on legal fees, but no comprehensive request for equitable adjustment had ever been submitted. We worked with the company to compile a large comprehensive request for equitable adjustment and obtained a settlement.
  • A construction contractor in Buffalo, New York suffered substantial losses in a contract with the State. The State was taking the position that our client was delinquent in its performance. We made a request for documentation pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law for all of the State’s files pertaining to the contract, and uncovered that the State either knew or should have known that the design was defective prior to the contact award. We then, with the help of the company, submitted a large claim and the matter was successfully resolved.
  • An electronics manufacturer contacted us after its contract was terminated for convenience, with the manufacturer possessing a large amount of inventory sitting on its floor. The Government sought to bar the contractor from recovering its costs, asserting that since the contractor had not passed first article testing, the contractor should only be entitled to the cost of the first article. We successfully argued that the Government had waived the first article limitation clause, resulting in a settlement.
  • We represented a client whose contract was terminated for default. While the Government and the contractor had an adversarial relationship, we agreed to participate in Alternate Dispute Resolution (“ADR”). The Government would only agree to ADR through what they call a mini-trial, with a binding decision from the ASBCA. Prior to the ADR proceeding, we were able to depose an ex-Government official, who admitted that the Government inspector was out to shut the contractor down. We made arrangements for the ex-Government official to travel to the hearing, and the matter settled prior to the commencement of the ADR.

Our Firm has also successfully obtained a decision or judgment in favor of our clients through litigation when the Government entity refused to resolve their issue with our client without going to court. The following are examples of cases in which our firm was able to reach a favorable decision for our clients through the litigation processes:

  • We represented a contractor in a breach of contract action against the City of Syracuse. Our firm was able to obtain a jury award in the amount of $7,306,021.64 in quantum meruit damages. Am. Underground Eng'g, Inc. v. City of Syracuse, No. 5:00-CV-278 FJS/DEP, 2011 WL 4809882, (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2011), aff'd, 526 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2013).
  • We represented a client seeking equitable adjustment for defective plans and drawings and Government-furnished property before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The Board found that the client demonstrated entitlement to the additional costs incurred due to the need for repairs to Government-furnished material and resubmissions of the first article, as well as changes to the Government drawings. Commercial Products and Engineering Company, Inc., 96-2 BCA ¶ 28411 (ASBCA Jun. 24, 1996).
  • Our Firm represented a client before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in regard to a claim for equitable adjustment claim relating to the manufacturing of “high performance” anti-gravity suits worn by aviators in the United States Military. The Court found that, as a result of a coloration change to the fibers used in the suits that resulted in a delay in performance, our client was entitled to equitable adjustments, in the form of both time and monetary adjustments, for delays related to the coloration change requested by the government. DERM/BURO, INC., 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,157 (ASBCA May 27, 2009)
  • Our firm filed an application for recovery on behalf of our client pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA). The Board concluded that our client was entitled to recover $16,771.88 in attorney’s fees and costs from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. R.A. Glancy & Sons, Inc., vs. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5353-C (4060), 2016 WL 4009291 (July 18, 2016)

Our firm has also represented a number of clients in the bid protest arena, obtaining corrective actions. When the Government refuses to take corrective action, our firm has been successful in seeking relief from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).

  • We represented a boat manufacturer in a protest before the GAO of the Department of the Navy’s rejection of the manufacturer’s bid for a contract for a boat. The protest was sustained, as we showed the GAO that the agency’s description of its minimum needs misled our client into offering a more expensive boat model. The GAO held that the Navy should reimburse our client for the costs of preparing its proposal and its costs of filing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Nautica International, Inc., 93-2 CPD ¶ 321 (Dec.15, 1993).
  • We represented a company in a bid protest of a contract contemplating the use of commercial item procedures. We successfully showed that the General Services Administration failed to identify any price/technical tradeoff analysis in deciding to award the contract to a bidder at a cost 22% higher than that offered by our client. The GAO recommended a re-evaluation of the offerors’ past performance proposals, and that our client be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Universal Bldg. Maint., Inc., 99-2 CPD ¶ 32 (July 15, 1999).
  • We represented a company in a bid protest following the award of two contracts for custodial services at a United States Air Force Base. We successfully argued that eight post-award modifications materially changed the contract, which constituted a violation of the Competition in Contracting Act. The GAO further held that our client was entitled to permanent injunctive relief. Cardinal Maintenance Service, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 98 (2004).