Is My Drywall Chinese? - HB Litigation Conferences

• Concluded a major construction dispute before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in
London. The arbitration arose from the design and construction of a $1 billion project. A parallel
action was instituted in a federal district court against third parties whose participation was key
to resolution of the dispute. Ultimately employed advanced ADR procedures in one of the firstever
successful combined mediations of a federal court case and an ICC arbitration.
• Assisted a major engineering firm in obtaining the award of a contract to design San Francisco’s
new central subway. We were able to demonstrate that applicable federal law, including the
Brooks Act, required award to our client.
• Successfully protested the use of restrictive specifications in the request for proposals issued for
the procurement of the U.S. military’s Meals Ready to Eat. After obtaining a temporary
restraining order, the restrictive specification was removed, allowing our client to compete for
the contract.
• Successfully protested the U.S. Army’s proposed award of a sole-source contract for helicopter
equipment using funds congressionally earmarked for a competitor of a Duane Morris client.
Our bid protest, filed first with the Army and then the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), argued that it was unlawful to make any award on a sole source basis because the
earmark had not properly authorized a sole-source procurement, and that the Army had failed to
follow procurement regulations applicable to proposed sole-source contracts. Within two days of
the filing of the GAO protest, the Army withdrew the procurement, and committed to notify our
client and other competitors of any subsequent action to procure the helicopter equipment in
question.
For Additional Information
For more information, please contact Robert A. Prentice at 215.979.1130 or any of the lawyers listed
on www.duanemorris.com.
The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained
in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results.
6.08
5
[ www.duanemorris.com ]