Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Protest Intervention: When a Competitor Files a Bid Protest, a Government Contractor Should Take Immediate Steps to Protect Its Award • Negativity Bias: Was this Agency Too Focused on Flaws and Not on Positive Aspects of Protester’s Past Performance? • Two Steps from 8(a): The OASIS+ Qualifying Project Conundrum • Understanding the “One Big Beautiful Bill” as Federal Appropriations • AI company Anthropic Sues Trump Administration Seeking to Undo ‘Supply Chain Risk’ Designation

Claimant Sought More in Attorneys’ Fees than It Won on Appeal. How Did CBCA Handle the Request?

The claimant requested over $9000 in attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The CBCA noted the claimant had only prevailed on a $5000 portion of its appeal. Thus, the board reasoned, the claimant was only entitled to a portion ($4700) of its fees. 

GC Works, Inc. V. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 7833-C 
  • Claim and Appeal – The protester submitted a claim for $15,000 in delay costs. The agency denied it. The claimant appealed to the CBCA. The board found the claimant was entitled to $5000 for a differing site condition. But the board found the claimant’s remaining claims were “unrealistic, factually and legally.” 
  • Request for Fees – The claimant requested over $9,300 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The board, however, only awarded the claimant $4700 in fees. The board reasoned the claimant had only achieved limited success on appeal. The additional effort expended in the case had not been beneficial to the resolution. 

The claimant is represented by Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw and Nicholas T. Solosky of Fox Rothschild LLP. The government is represented by Mark R. Simpson of the Department of Agriculture. 

--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor 

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.