About
I have devoted nearly my entire professional career to government contracts. After graduating from the United States Air Force Academy and SMU Dedman School of Law, I served as a government contracts lawyer in the Air Force, acting as procurement counsel, legal advisor to Inspector General investigations involving procurement matters, and a member of the Air Force Contract Litigation Team. Those assignments allowed me to see federal contracting from the perspectives of the contracting officer, program office, investigator, and trial lawyer.
In 1997, I resigned my commission and entered private practice, focusing exclusively on government contracts. Since then, I have represented contractors in disputes before the United States Court of Federal Claims, boards of contract appeals, federal district courts, and federal courts of appeals. My practice has included federal construction disputes, terminations, suspension and debarment matters, audits and investigations, and other controversies unique to the federal procurement system.
In 2013, after more than fifteen years in private practice, including service as a partner at national law firms, I founded Jackson Holcomb LLP.
I am a trial lawyer, and I genuinely enjoy trying cases when trial is necessary. But most disputes can—and should—be resolved without trial.
Representative Experience
- Pursued international arbitration against the U.S. prime contractor on behalf of an Afghan subcontractor whose USAID-funded bridge project ran into drastically different security and transport conditions, securing a $4.8 million settlement.
- After GSA suspended work on a partially completed border project and asserted a $6.23 million deductive change that would have left the client owing money, argued constructive termination for convenience, pursued the claim through litigation, and recovered $2.8 million.
- When DHS rejected invoices for supervisor hours despite the client’s reliance on a government-mandated pricing spreadsheet, used the spreadsheet to show direct billing was required; on the filing of a COFC complaint, secured a $1 million settlement and a contract modification allowing proper billing going forward.
- Recovered the client’s costs in a multimillion-dollar COFC settlement after the Iraqi government failed to fully pay for a high-risk battlefield support project; built the claim on the U.S. Government’s oral assurances and directives and overcame multiple motions to dismiss.
- Defeated in arbitration an Alaska municipality’s $18 million claim against the electrical subcontractor on a natural-gas-fired power generation facility and recovered attorneys’ fees for the client.
- Recovered more than $1 million for damages from defective Navy specifications by challenging the government’s performance-specification defense, resolved by ASBCA appeal and negotiated settlement.
- Persuaded an agency Suspension and Debarment Official to terminate debarment consideration following a CID false-claims show-cause letter by establishing that the client had reasonably interpreted the contract, that testing demonstrated the products met performance requirements, and that the client was presently responsible.
- Persuaded DCAA to reverse its position and recommend full payment of a termination settlement proposal after the agency had questioned nearly 80% of the amount, resulting in payment of 100% of the $4.9 million claimed.
- Following an AFOSI Report of Investigation that triggered a suspension and proposed debarment, established by independent investigation that the ROI missed key facts and reached invalid conclusions; persuaded the SDO to rescind the suspension and proposed debarment.
Representative Decisions
Alutiiq Mfg. Contrs., LLC v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 689 (2019), appeal dismissed, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 40908 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2019).
Lead trial counsel for Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors in a trial before Senior Judge Loren A. Smith at the United States Court of Federal Claims. Following a post-trial opinion, the court granted judgment for the contractor, holding that the government did not possess adequate grounds to terminate the contract for default under 48 C.F.R. § 49.402-3(f) because the contracting officer’s analysis ignored material facts and circumstances, including the contractor’s improvement in performance after personnel changes and the underlying problems with the asphalt specifications. The government’s appeal to the Federal Circuit was dismissed.
Nippo Corp./Int’l Bridge Corp. JV v. AMEC Earth & Envt’l, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47232 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2013): Amended Judgment Order entered Sept. 16, 2015 (ECF 342).
Lead trial counsel for the Nippo Corporation/International Bridge Corp. joint venture against the prime contractor in a five-week non-jury trial before the Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arising from demolition and replacement of the north runway at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The court entered findings for the joint venture on claims for differing site conditions, defective specifications, change-order recovery, and equitable adjustment, and against the prime contractor on its counterclaims for liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees. Amended Judgment Order entered in the amount of $6,096,297.92.
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 558 (2009), rev’d, 654 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Lead trial counsel for the Miller Act surety in a five-week bench trial before Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr., at the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court entered judgment for the surety in the amount of $1,375,420 for impairment of suretyship and reimbursement and $326,700 for improperly assessed liquidated damages, arising from the government’s failure to enforce FAR-mandated contractor payment certifications on a defaulted Navy construction contract. Argued the cross-appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit reversed on jurisdictional grounds. The appellate decision is now the controlling Federal Circuit authority on the scope of Tucker Act and Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction over Miller Act surety claims against the United States.
Appeal of Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 2015-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 36,067 (Aug. 11, 2015).
Co-counsel for the contractor in a published Board decision granting the contractor’s motion for summary judgment and converting an Army termination for cause to a termination for the convenience of the government on a foreign-language test-item supply contract, on the theory that a prior contract modification automatically descoped any items the government did not accept.
Appeal of Alutiiq Commercial Enters., LLC, ASBCA No. 61503, 2020-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 37,506 (Jan. 9, 2020).
Co-counsel for the contractor in a published Board decision granting the contractor’s motion for summary judgment on a $1,744,330.37 claim for increased costs incurred during the first option period of a Tinker Air Force Base civil-engineering services contract after a revised collective bargaining agreement took effect. The Board held that the Air Force’s failure to give the FAR 22.1010 notice to the union, more than thirty days before the option exercise date, entitled the contractor to an equitable adjustment for the resulting wage and fringe-benefit increases.
Appeals of Oregon Iron Works, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 58356, 58399-58415, 2015 ASBCA LEXIS 69 (Feb. 12, 2015).
Sole counsel of record for Oregon Iron Works across eighteen consolidated appeals before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals; consent judgment in the amount of $1,125,000, inclusive of interest.
Appeal of Sadaf Petroleum Kabul, Ltd., ASBCA No. 58353, 2014 ASBCA LEXIS 67 (Mar. 12, 2014).
Sole counsel of record for the contractor in an appeal from a termination for default on a fuel-supply contract in Afghanistan; negotiated conversion to a termination for the convenience of the government and dismissed the appeal.
Presentations
- “What To Do If The Worst Happens: Dealing with Default Terminations,” National 8(a) Association 2025 Alaska Regional Conference, Anchorage (June 10, 2025).
- “Prime/Sub Relationships,” PubK Group’s Government Contracts Annual Review 2024, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 14, 2024).
- “Protecting Intellectual Property in Government Contracts,” Oregon Law Institute, Portland (June 10, 2011).
- “Government Contract Law,” Federal Publications, LLC, Seattle (June 6-8, 2006).
- “Advanced Topics in Government Contract Law,” Federal Publications, LLC, Menlo Park (May 4, 2006).
Publications
- Co-Author, “Rethinking Abuse of Discretion Claims,” Construction Briefings, No. 2006-07 (2006).
- Co-Author, “Interest In & On Claims,” Briefing Papers, No. 06-4 (2006).
- Co-Author, “Recognizing and Challenging Out of Scope Changes,” Briefing Papers, No. 03-13 (2003).
- Co-Author, “Using Industry Studies to Quantify Lost Productivity,” Construction Briefings, No. 2001-12 (2001).
- Author, “A Dispute Resolution Strategy for Federal Construction Projects,” Construction Briefings, No. 2000-6 (2000).
Recognition
- Listed in Best Lawyers in America 2015-2026, Litigation – Construction.
- Washington Super Lawyers 2007, 2010-2012, 2020-2023, 2025-2026.