Douglas Proxmire advises clients on matters involving government and construction contract formation and dispute resolution, including complex contract drafting, claim preparation, and litigation arising out of a wide range of technology, heavy industrial, and commercial contracts.
Mr. Proxmire has handled matters involving public works, defense, technology, mass transit, dredging, airport expansion, fresh water and waste water, architectural, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, environmental controls, historical renovation, and shipbuilding contracts. He regularly advises contractors, subcontractors, owners, and construction sureties and assists in the formulation of bids, negotiation of contracts, preparation of claims, and bid protests. Mr. Proxmire also counsels clients in a variety of alternate dispute resolution scenarios, including mediation and arbitration.
- Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC v. the United States: Successfully represented Hesco Bastion Ltd., a manufacturer of force protection barriers for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a contract award controversy before the Court of Federal Claims. In a 51-page decision, the Court ruled that the United States properly awarded a contract with a potential value in excess of $500 million to Hesco. Among the Court’s findings was that Hesco was properly awarded the sole source contract because only the Hesco product could meet the government’s stated needs for the procurement.
- Blumenthal-Kahn Elec. Ltd. v. Am. Home Assur. Co.: Successfully represented American Home Assurance Company, a construction surety, in a dispute determining the rights of subcontractors to seek recovery under certain Federal (Miller Act) and Virginia (the Little Miller Act) statutes on a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) project. After considering the issue, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted AHAC’s motion to dismiss, ruling that neither statute applied to MWAA projects because MWAA is not operated by a federal or a state agency and not subject to either of the statutes.
- Hawaiian Dredging Construction Company v. United States: Successfully represented Hawaiian Dredging Construction Company (HDCC) after the Navy rejected HDCC’s low bids seeking the award of two construction contracts. The Navy rejected HDCC’s bids because HDCC’s bid bonds on each contract were accompanied by a mechanically signed power of attorney (POA). The Navy ruled that these mechanically signed POAs disqualified HDCC’s bids. Upon consideration of HDCC’s protest, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that POAs did bind the surety’s bid bond commitment to the government and the surety’s bid bond would have been enforceable had the Navy needed to act under these bonds. This decision of first impression established precedent setting the standard for acceptable mechanically signed documents in government contract procurement. As the result of this decision, contractors and sureties will be able to pursue government contract opportunities more efficiently and at a reduced cost.
- Bombardier Transportation Holdings, Inc. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority: Successfully represented MWAA’s awardee of the automated people mover (APM) system that will replace the mobile lounges at Dulles Airport. In the most expensive contract award in MWAA history, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed that MWAA properly evaluated the competing proposals when it awarded the APM contracts to Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA) over Bombardier Transportation Holdings, Inc. The Court accepted SCOA’s arguments that SCOA properly complied with MWAA’s Local Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and technical criteria when MWAA awarded the APM contract to SCOA.
- Reliance Insurance Co., et al. v. Pickus Construction and Equipment Co., Inc.: Successfully defended a prime contractor against a subcontractor’s delay and loss efficiency claim arising out of a construction project to build a “Damage Control” School at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the general contractor’s motion and directed a verdict in the general contractor’s favor at the close of the plaintiff’s case before the trial court.
- Pickus Construction and Equipment Co., Inc. v. United States: Successfully pursued a loss efficiency claim on behalf of a general contractor and a subcontractor arising out of a project to renovate an existing building at Great Lakes Naval Training Center to allow the Navy to train its recruits for duty. To resolve the dispute, the general contractor successfully defended multiple Navy motions for summary judgment and ultimately recovered for the additional work that the general contractor and its subcontractor performed as a result of the Navy’s plans and specifications.
- Allegheny Construction Company, Inc. v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and URS Corporation: Successfully represented an architect/engineer that a prime contractor attempted to sue in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County arising out of a runway relocation project at Virginia Tech Airport. Successfully dismissed the general contractor’s declaratory judgment action at the trial court level and the general contractor’s appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.