Government Contracts > Government Contract Litigation

The core of our government contracts practice is its litigation capability, which is second to none. Each of the group’s lawyers is a litigator, and we have successfully handled many complex government contract disputes in an array of tribunals. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP litigates in federal district courts, state courts, the Court of Federal Claims, the boards of contract appeals and the AAA. We also have substantial experience in arbitrations, mediations, mini-trials and other forms of alternate dispute resolution, including international arbitrations and mediations. Our team includes two former clerks at the Board of Contract Appeals, a former Court of Federal Claims clerk and a former DOJ Commercial Branch litigator. We understand government contract litigation and its processes. Whenever litigation is being contemplated or pursued, we assist with the preparation for negotiations and remain alert to the strategic considerations and opportunities for favorable settlements or alternative mechanisms that will help avoid protracted disputes.

If a dispute occurs during the performance of a government contract or subcontract, we assist the client in claims preparation and settlement negotiations. If the matter cannot be settled, we represent our clients in subsequent appeals to a Board of Contract Appeals or to the Court of Federal Claims when the claim is against the government. When the dispute involves a subcontractor, we litigate in state and federal courts or represent the client in arbitration proceedings. We pride ourselves on having substantial experience in all phases of litigation—from the claim and request for a contracting officer’s final decision or “demand letter” through discovery, motion practice, trial and appeal. Still, the greatest value we lend our clients is as practical and pragmatic advisors who never lose focus on the client’s broader goals—such as minimizing defense costs and the disruption to the client’s day-to-day business and employees. We thus advocate a zealous initial review of matters to identify appropriate cases for early resolution (e.g., true “nuisance” cases, where the cost of defense quickly will exceed the cost of settlement; and cases that are unlikely to be resolved via motion practice) and pursue such resolution as appropriate. We understand that an “inefficient win” is, in fact, a “loss” for the client, and we carefully manage our cases, in consultation with our clients, to avoid both such outcomes.

Please see our representative experience here.