Claim Preparation Attorney's Fees Award Affirmed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.29.15
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (April 24, 2015), a C&M case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the contractor for claim preparation granted by the Court of Federal Claims, remanding the matter back to the CFC only to recalculate the starting point for interest and to add overhead and profit to the award. The court rejected the government's principal attacks, finding that SUFI was permitted to sue in the CFC after the CO had failed to issue a timely final decision on its claim, fees in this non-CDA case were foreseeable and recoverable as breach damages, and C&M's standard rates were reasonable, while finding merit in SUFI's cross-appeal requesting overhead and profit as part of the breach damages available under the common law.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
