News

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently set aside GSA’s award of a lease for the Transportation Security Administration’s (“TSA”) consolidated Northern Virginia Office.  The TSA’s new office would have provided more than 600,000 square feet of rentable space for the administration.  The Court of Federal Claims in Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States, held that a permanent injunction preventing GSA from proceeding with lease contract originally awarded to successful offeror was warranted.  The court further held that GSA’s acceptance of an offer for space larger than the permitted maximum contained in the request for proposal contravened a material term in the proposal, and therefore, violated 40 U.S.C. § 3307(a).  The failure to acquire appropriations for this lease, also violated the Anti-Deficiency Act, and therefore, the lease was void ab initio.

The Court, with this ruling, has carved out a right for would-be lessors to seek permanent injunctive remedies if an agency lease contract does not comply with the terms approved by Congress and articulated in the Request for Lease Proposal (“RLP”).  Prior to this ruling, post award bid protests pertaining to a fully executed GSA lease did not pose a real threat to the government or the awardee.  After this ruling government contractors should be very careful to follow any, and all, specifications found in the RLP when submitting their bid.

Moore & Lee is pleased to announce that Michael Dockins has joined the firm as an Associate.  Michael earned his law degree from the University of Texas at Austin in May 2016.  Michael had previously worked at Moore & Lee as a Paralegal prior to law school and as a Summer Associate during law school.

Moore & Lee is pleased to announce that Spencer Kiggins has joined the firm as an Associate. Spencer is barred in Virginia and the District of Columbia and has been practicing complex commercial, securities, antitrust and construction litigation since 2009.

In a recent matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, a subcontractor initiated a suit against a general contractor and its payment bond surety to recover for claims of changed work and increased costs on a construction project. MBR Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. GJH-15-14, 2016 WL 727107.  The general contractor and payment bond surety filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative stay, the subcontractor’s action pending the completion of mandatory dispute resolution procedures between the general contractor and the owner of the project. The Court found that the subcontractor’s failure to satisfy a contractually binding “condition precedent to the initiation of . . . the instant litigation” was cause to stay the action pending resolution “of the contractual dispute resolution procedures” between the general contractor and the owner of the project. The Court held that the parties were bound to contractual procedures they agreed to in the subcontract, which required the subcontractor to allow the general contractor to exhaust the contractual remedies under the Prime Contract before the subcontractor could proceed directly against the general contractor.