Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
“Close Enough” Isn’t Good Enough: Protester’s “Homebrew” Certification Sinks Proposal • Lost in Translation: GAO Upholds Rejection of Lease Written in Japanese • Bid Protests in Alaska • Federal Circuit Holds Challengers to CICA Stay Overrides Need Not Satisfy Four-Factor Injunctive Relief Test • The Clock Is Still Ticking — Claims Timeliness Across the Boards and at the COFC

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.