Advice and Advocacy | Jackson Holcomb LLP

When to call

If any of this is happening, we should talk.

Most of what follows resolves without a formal proceeding. But the window to influence the outcome — and the cost — is shorter than it looks. Some issues reach beyond a single award. Early response is how a contractor protects its business, eligibility, and reputation before the government’s view hardens.

When the agency questions your performance. Cure notices. Show-cause letters. Adverse CPAR ratings. These communications frame the record before the contractor has had a meaningful chance to respond. Acting before the rating is final — or before the show-cause letter becomes a termination — can determine the outcome.
When the agency challenges your costs or pricing. DCAA, SIGAR, and inspector-general incurred-cost audits. Termination settlement reviews. Equitable price reduction demands. Defective-pricing inquiries. The audit report is an opinion and is frequently wrong; the contracting officer’s decision, if one follows, is what matters. Early response work can shape both.
When the agency changes the work. Constructive changes. Deductive changes. Modifications negotiated under time pressure. Differing site conditions. How the contractor documents the change in real time — not later — often determines whether the issue remains a routine modification or becomes a contested claim.
When the parties disagree about the contract. Interpretive disputes about specifications, requirements, or scope. Requests for equitable adjustment. Cardinal-change concerns. The work is to develop the contractor’s position before it hardens into a claim — and to negotiate from a foundation that holds up if it does.
When the agency questions your eligibility or status. Non-responsibility determinations. Late-proposal rejections. Responsibility re-determinations after award. Affiliation questions. The window before award — or before the CO’s decision becomes final — is narrow and decisive.
When the government inquires, audits, or investigates. Inspector General investigations. IG performance audits. Civil investigative demands. Subpoenas. Document preservation notices. The first response shapes what the investigation becomes — and so does the decision about whether, and how, to make a voluntary disclosure.
When suspension or debarment is on the table. Notices of suspension. Proposed debarments. Show-cause inquiries from a suspending and debarring official. These proceedings move faster than most contractors expect, and the response is the advocacy that can make a difference.
When prime–sub or teaming relationships strain. Subcontract performance disputes before formal proceedings. Teaming-agreement disagreements. Flow-down compliance. Pass-through claims and Severin-doctrine questions. The right structure early prevents both sides from litigating each other and the government at once.
When compliance posture matters. Buy American TAA compliance. CMMC and cybersecurity readiness reviews. OFCCP and DOL inquiries. Davis-Bacon administration. CPSR preparation and response. Compliance is cheaper as posture than as defense, especially when the issue may affect more than one contract.

How we work

Preventive when possible. Foundational when not.

The work that resolves a matter without a proceeding is the same work that prepares it to win one. We do both — and we do them together.

Senior judgment, from the first call These matters turn on judgment calls that are easy to get wrong: when to push back and when to absorb; when to write a letter and when to wait; whether a voluntary disclosure helps or hurts; and what the contracting officer needs to see. A partner makes those calls here — not later, after the call has already been made by someone else.
The record we build now is the one we use later If the matter resolves without a proceeding, the record we built is what closed it. If it does not, the record we built is what we file. Either way, the work is the same. We approach every advice matter as if it will become a dispute — because some of them will.
The same lawyer stays with the matter When advice and advocacy becomes Protests and Appeals, or Claims and Disputes, the lawyer who has been with the matter from the beginning continues with it. That continuity is one of the reasons clients come to a boutique: the phase of the matter changes, not the team.

Results

Representative matters.

Contract preservation

Two contracts worth more than $100 million preserved through bankruptcy. After the client’s parent company entered bankruptcy and the client could not provide required bonds, we structured a solution involving a bonded prime contractor, subcontract performance by our client, and immediate novation. We persuaded the government that the approach protected its interests, allowing the client to perform and profit from contracts it would otherwise have lost.
Army price-reduction demand cut by two-thirds. Our client held an Army snow and ice removal contract at a military airfield in Alaska. Following record snowfall and temperatures below -40°F, the Army sought a price reduction claiming incomplete performance. We demonstrated full performance after two of three December snow events and established that the extreme cold constituted excusable delay. The contracting officer accepted our counteroffer, reducing the deduction to approximately one-third of the government’s initial demand.
$1M and 187 days recovered by REA. Because of government delay in issuing NTP, our client’s work was pushed into winter far earlier in the construction schedule than planned, producing additional costs from trade stacking and temporary winter protection, as well as delays. We prepared and negotiated an REA that recovered $1 million and a 187-day schedule extension.
$2.2M overpayment recovered from joint venture. Our client — a member of a joint venture — discovered that the work allocated between the JV members did not match the work performed, and that it was being underpaid by the JV. The other JV member disagreed. We demonstrated that the agreements prohibited payment for work not performed, allowing our client to recoup $2.2 million.

Responsibility and eligibility

Certificate of Competency obtained. The Navy found our client non-responsible despite its low bid and referred the matter to SBA. We showed a predecessor default termination should not be attributed to our client and demonstrated its ability to perform; SBA issued a COC requiring award.
Late proposal accepted. After a DoD SAFE upload failure caused the agency to reject our client’s design-build proposal as late, we identified FAR exceptions and directed the CO to the agency’s own server records. The agency rescinded its determination and evaluated the proposal.

Suspension and debarment

Debarment avoided. The agency alleged manufacturing process failures turned each invoice into a false claim and asked why the client should not be debarred. We showed the client reasonably interpreted the contract, delivered conforming products, and remained presently responsible. The SDO ended the review.
Suspension and proposed debarment rescinded. After an AFOSI report led to suspension and proposed debarment, we conducted an independent investigation, developed witness and document evidence, and showed the report missed key facts and reached unsupported conclusions. The SDO rescinded both.

Audits and cost exposure

$8.7M audit exposure reduced to under $200,000. SIGAR questioned $8,765,541 in incurred costs and recommended recoupment. We showed the labor records satisfied FAR standards and the audit misunderstood Afghanistan pay practices. Settled for less than $200,000.
DCMA Contractor Purchasing System Review - approval secured. Represented a major federal contractor through a Defense Contract Management Agency Contractor Purchasing System Review. Counseled the contractor through the review and on the corrective actions DCMA requested; the agency approved the contractor's purchasing system.
$4.9M termination settlement recovered in full after DCAA had questioned 80 percent. Counsel for a contractor on a termination-for-convenience settlement proposal of approximately $4.9 million. The Defense Contract Audit Agency initially questioned roughly 80 percent of the proposal. After audit response and negotiation with the contracting officer, the contractor recovered 100 percent of the proposed settlement.

SBA protests and appeals

OHA vacated and remanded an adverse size determination — client kept the SEC iPASS 2.0 IDIQ. Represented C2 Alaska, an Alaska Native Corporation, in a size appeal arising from the SEC iPASS 2.0 indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract ($2.5 billion ceiling, ten-year period of performance). OHA vacated the adverse size determination and remanded. The client kept the contract. Size Appeal of C2 Alaska, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6149 (2022).
Successful at the area office; OHA denied the appeal and affirmed - client got the Navy 8(a) contract. Represented Ajanta Consulting on a Navy Strategic Systems Programs financial management 8(a) set-aside. The client prevailed on its size protest at the area office and defended the determination on appeal. OHA denied the appeal and affirmed. The client got the contract. Size Appeal of PacArctic, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6105 (2021).
Defended a DOE small-business award through a multi-ground size protest and OHA appeal. Represented Unwin Company, the awardee on a Department of Energy contract for specialized technical and administrative support services. The protester alleged affiliation with three firms on theories of identity of interest, common management, the ostensible subcontractor rule, and totality of the circumstances. The area office found the client small. OHA denied the appeal and affirmed. Size Appeal of SC&A, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6059 (2020).

Dispute avoidance

Dispute avoided — contracting officer's FAR 17.204(e) reading corrected before a claim was filed. Counsel for a supply contractor after the contracting officer refused to extend the contract's delivery period. We persuaded the contracting officer his interpretation of FAR 17.204(e) was wrong - he was applying the services rule to a supply contract. He extended the delivery period and the client avoided a dispute.
Government's equitable price reduction request resolved at roughly one-third of the asking amount - accepted by the contracting officer, no claim filed, relationship preserved. Counsel for the contractor on a snow, ice, and sand removal contract at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. After the second of three December snow events, the Army sought an equitable price reduction treating the entire month as nonconforming. Our Rule 408 counteroffer applied Clarkies-style partial-performance credit to the two snow events the contractor undisputedly cleared, Clarkies, Inc., ASBCA No. 22784, 81-2 BCA T 15,313, and limited the Government's percentages to the ten days between the second and third events. The contracting officer accepted. No claim was filed, and the contractor remains in good standing on the contract.
Negative CPARs across multiple contracts rescinded and replaced with satisfactory ratings - client awarded the follow-on contract. Counsel for a federal services contractor. Soon after the client filed a bid protest challenging the award of a follow-on contract in one region, the Government issued extremely negative CARs across multiple contracts covering different regions. We filed claims under the Contract Disputes Act disputing the assertions and the ratings, then opened a parallel conversation with Government counsel. The Government agreed to rescind the negative CPARs and replaced them with satisfactory evaluations. The client was ultimately awarded the follow-on contract.

Advice and advocacy.