Daniel R. Forman

Partner
Washington, D.C.
dforman@crowell.com
Phone: +1 202.624.2504
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004

Daniel R. Forman is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and is co-chair of the firm's Government Contracts Group. He is also a member of the firm's Management Board.

Experience

Dan's practice focuses on a wide variety of government procurement law, including bid protests, False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, investigations of potential civil and criminal matters, ethics and compliance, contract claims and disputes, GSA schedule contracting, and small disadvantaged business contracting. Dan is also experienced in negotiating and drafting teaming agreements and subcontracts, as well as providing counseling on the interpretation of FAR clauses and solicitations. Dan's practice also focuses on state and local procurement matters, including State False Claims Act issues, lobbying and contingency payment compliance. He has been involved in bid protest litigation in six states and the District of Columbia. Dan is ranked as a Band 1 ranked attorney by Chambers USA, listed as a two-time Law360 MVP (2015, 2020), was named to Legal 500’s “Hall of Fame” for Government Contracts in their 2020 Guide, is an Acritas Star and was previously named to BTI’s list of “Client Service All-Stars.

Representative Engagements

Representing Protester

  • Iron Mountain Info. Mgmt., LLC-Costs, B- 418797.4, June 23, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 234. Successfully challenged a Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”) contract award to Sourcecorp BPS, Inc. for records management services on behalf of Iron Mountain Information Management, LLC. Iron Mountain successfully demonstrated during ADR that the VA failed to evaluate the impact of the sale of Sourcecorp from former parent, Exela Technologies, Inc. to Retrievex, Inc., a transaction which took place after the submission of quotes but several months before award. On June 23, 2021, GAO recommend that Iron Mountain be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its successful protest grounds, finding that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of Iron Mountain’s clearly meritorious protest, which had pointed to the VA’s failure to consider the Sourcecorp transaction since the initial protest filing.
  • Knight Point Sys., LLC, B 418746, Aug. 24, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 314. Successfully protested and overturned an agency’s exclusion of Knight Point’s proposal from a nearly $1 Billion IT procurement. 
  • Cont’l Serv. Grp. v. U.S., 722 F. App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Represented a Department of Education contractor in protesting and appealing a series of procurement decisions involving task order awards. After the COFC initially dismissed multiple protests, successfully appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed and remanded. See Coast Pro., Inc. v. United States, 828 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). On remand, the agency took corrective action and awarded Crowell’s client a task order. Later, when the work was enjoined through separate litigation, Crowell successfully appealed that injunction—and obtained a rare stay pending appeal—restoring the client’s right to perform. 
  • AT&T Corp., B-4141886, et al., Oct. 5, 2017 2017 CPD ¶ 330; AT&T Corp. v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 550 (2017). Successfully protested, on behalf of AT&T, the award of a contract for a mobile device solution to support the 2020 Decennial Census. GAO found that the Agency’s discussions were misleading and unequal and the technical evaluation was unreasonable. C&M also represented AT&T (August 2017) in its successful challenge of the Census Bureau’s decision to override of the automatic stay of performance while AT&T’s GAO protest was pending. The Court of Federal Claims found that the Agency failed to meet the standard for an override. 
  • AT&T Gov’t Sols., Inc., B-413012, B-413012.2, July 28, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 237. Successfully protested at GAO on behalf of AT&T Government Solutions, a U.S. Air Force award for computer network operations and cyberspace warfare operations. AT&T demonstrated that the Air Force failed to reasonably evaluate a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that arose from the awardee’s relationship with a proposed subcontractor that had access to information which could have given rise to an unfair competitive advantage. 
  • Nexant, Inc., B-407708 et al (Jan. 30, 2013). GAO sustained protest of the award of a clean energy consulting contract by USAID.
  • FN Manufacturing LLC, B-407936 (Apr. 19, 2013). Successfully defended award to Colt Defense in Army procurement for replacement barrels for the M4 small arms weapon.
  • Harris IT Servs. Corp., B-408546.2, Oct. 31, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 245. Defeated protest of the Department of the Navy's $3.5 billion award for Next Generation Enterprise Network IT services. 
  • IntegriGuard, LLC d/b/a HMS Federal, B-407691.3, B-407691.4, Sept. 30, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 241. Successfully defended protest of $320 million contract award made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the establishment of a centralized coordination of benefits and Medicare secondary payer recovery operation. 
  • Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp., B-401068.14 et al., Jan. 16, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 34. Successfully defended protest of $330 million Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services award for Medicare administrative contractor services. 
  • The Emergence Group, B-404844.7, 2012 CPD ¶ (Feb. 29, 2012). GAO sustains protest brought by C&M challenging award of five contracts by the Department of State for criminal justice program support, finding that the agency's past performance evaluation was unreasonable and deviated from the solicitation's evaluation scheme.
  • TriCenturion, Inc.; SafeGuard Svs., LLC, B-406032 et al., 2012 CPD ¶ 52 (Jan. 25, 2012). In a procurement for fraud detection services conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), GAO sustains protest filed by C&M, finding that CMS failed to (1) conduct a reasonable evaluation of the awardee’s proposed labor costs; (2) respond to the protester's challenges to the technical evaluation; and (3) produce documentation or otherwise explain how it evaluated the relevance of each offeror’s past performance. 
  • The Emergence Group, B-404844.5 et al. (Sept. 26, 2011). GAO sustains protest brought by C&M, finding that the Department of State failed to reasonably evaluate technical and past performance proposals in procurement for criminal justice program support.
  •  SafeGuard Svs., LLC, B-404910, 2011 CPD ¶ 132 (June 28, 2011). GAO sustains protest by C&M challenging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ("CMS") decision to disqualify client because one of its subcontractors was late in submitting its final proposal on the grounds that CMS did not first determine whether the client’s proposal was acceptable without the subcontractor's submission.
  • Rapiscan Systems, Inc., B-401773 et al., 2010 CPD ¶ 60 (Mar. 15, 2010). Successfully protested task order award under the FSS for vehicle and cargo inspection systems where awardee included price for non-FSS items in the price of FSS items.
  • McKissack+Delcan JVII, B-401973 et al., 2010 CPD ¶ 28 (Jan. 13, 2010). Successfully protested agency's rejection of JV's proposal for program management oversight services where the agency lacked any reasonable basis for its determination that the JV's accounting system was unacceptable.
  • Public Communications Services, Inc. – Costs, B-400058.4, 2009 CPD ¶ 131 (June 25, 2009). GAO recommends 100% reimbursement of claimed legal fees.
  • GenPhar, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 08-788C (June 11, 2009). Defended protest challenging contract with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease for vaccine to protect against Ebola and Marburg virus.
  • Nortel Government Solutions, Inc., B-299522 et al., 2009 CPD ¶ 10 (Dec. 30, 2008). GAO sustains protest, finding that where awardee will be required to review and provide input on designs proposed by itself under separate contract with same agency, agency unreasonable failed to determine the extent of the awardee's OCI and unreasonably concluded that the awardee's mitigation plan was acceptable.
  • Public Communications Services, Inc., B-400058 et al., 2009 CPD ¶154 (July 18, 2008). GAO rejects agency argument that it has no jurisdiction to hear protest of no-cost contract and sustains protest where the agency's price and technical evaluations were unreasonable, deviated from the RFP, and reflected unequal treatment.
  • Serco Inc. et al. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 463 (Mar. 3, 2008). Defended multiple protests challenging award of Alliant contract by GSA.
  • Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., B-292476, 2003 CPD ¶177 (Oct. 1, 2003). Successfully protested agency's affirmative determination of responsibility where record shows that the Contracting Officer failed to adequately consider information about the awardee's record of integrity and business ethics.
  • Eurest Support Services , B-285813 et al., 2003 CPD ¶ 139 (July 3, 2001). Successfully protested award of fixed-price incentive contract where agency failed to properly assess realism of awardee's low proposed target price.
  • Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego, B-287190 et al., 2001 CPD ¶ 110 (May 25, 2001). Successfully protested sole-source award where record shows that agency did not provide protester with an accurate statement of its needs, and, therefore, failed to give protester an opportunity to demonstrate ability to meet agency's requirements.
  • BAE Systems, B-287189 et al., 2001 CPD ¶ 86 (May 14, 2001). Successfully protested cost comparison conducted under OMB Circular A-76 where the agency did not reasonably determine that the in-house plan satisfied the performance work statement.

Representing Intervener/Awardee

  • Torrent Techs., Inc., B-419326, B-419326.2, Jan. 19, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 29. Successfully defended, on behalf of National Flood Services, award of contract by the Federal Emergency Management Agency of a contract for flood insurance policy administration. The protester challenged virtually every aspect of the evaluation of our client’s proposal, but GAO concluded that the Agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable. 
  • Oracle Am., Inc. v. U.S., 144 Fed. Cl. 88 (2019), aff’d, 975 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Successfully defended at trial and on appeal against organizational conflict of interest allegations in the Department of Defense’s $10 Billion JEDI procurement. Oracle’s pre-award protest challenged the (1) legality of various solicitation provisions; (2) DoD’s decision to award only a single contract; and (3) various purported conflicts of interest with regards to several former government officials and Amazon. After prevailing at the COFC, Crowell & Moring was lead counsel when Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit, which unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of our client, Amazon. Oracle subsequently filed a petition for cert. with the U.S. Supreme Court, which is pending.
  • ICI Servs. Corp., B-418255.4, Sept. 23, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 302. Successfully defended protest arguing that the Navy should have excluded our client’s proposal from the competitive range. 
  • EFW Inc., B-418177 et al., Jan. 21, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 124; EFW, Inc. v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 396 (2020). Crowell successfully defended protests by EFW at both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the award to Collins for the Navy’s Enhanced Visual Acuity contract. Both GAO and the Court roundly rejected protester’s claims, agreeing with Collins and the Government that the Navy’s evaluation was sound and that there were no conflicts with the Navy’s handling of Collins’ past performance evaluation. 
  • Rivada Mercury, LLC v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 663 (2017). Successfully defended the award to AT&T of a 25-year contract to build a nationwide public safety broadband network for first responders (FirstNet). The Court of Federal Claims held that the agency managing the project, FirstNet, reasonably found that AT&T's proposal was the only competitive proposal submitted. The decision also created new law in the area of communications between the government and offerors during the pendency of the proposal evaluation process. 
  • XTec, Inc., B-405505, 2011 CPD ¶ 249 (Nov. 8, 2011). GAO denies protest challenging non-competitive issuance of task order under the Federal Supply Schedule ("FSS") to client by GSA for a shared service solution for an end-to-end system to issue and maintain common identification cards for government and contractor personnel, finding that the award was a logical follow-on to a prior FSS task order that had been subject to competition.
  • TtEC-TESORO, JV, B-405313 et al., 2012 CPD ¶ 2 (Oct. 7, 2011). GAO denies protest challenging award by the U.S. Coast Guard to C&M client for design/build construction project, finding that the record evidenced an evaluation and award decision that were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation.
  • Smiths Detection, Inc.; American Science and Engineering, Inc., B-402168 et al., 2011 CPD ¶ 39 (Feb. 9, 2011). GAO denies protest challenging award to C&M client by Department of Homeland Security for high energy mobile X-Ray systems, finding that protest allegations reflected mere disagreement and that the agency reasonably determined that the client’s proposal was technically superior and conducted a reasonable price realism evaluation.
  • Nortel Government Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 243 (Oct. 10, 2008). Challenge decision by the Drug Enforcement Agency to override the automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act.
  • XTec, Inc.; Computer Literacy World, Inc., B-299744 et al., 2007 CPD ¶ 148, 2007 CPD ¶ 154 (Aug. 6, 2007). Successfully defended protests of award for HSPD-12 contract under the Federal Supply Schedule, rejecting protesters' arguments that all required products had to be on the APL at the time of proposal submission.
  • Indtai Inc., B-298432.3, 2007 CPD ¶ 13 (Jan. 17, 2007). Successfully defended protest challenging agency's consideration of past performance of proposed subcontractors and agency's price analysis.
  • Standard Communications, Inc., B-296972, 2005 CPD ¶ 200 (Nov. 1, 2005). Successfully defended against protest challenging agency's past performance evaluation, price evaluation, and best value decision.
  • Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., B-291594.3, 2003 CPD ¶ 220 (Oct. 3, 2003). Successfully defended protest challenging agency's decision to increase protester's proposed staffing levels for cost evaluation purposes, and agency's conduct of meaningful discussions.
  • Rome Research Corp., B-291162, 2002 CPD ¶ 209 (Nov. 20, 2002). GAO denies protest where agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with RFP evaluation scheme.
  • Avalon Integrated Services Corp., B-290185, 2002 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 104 (July 1, 2002). GAO denies protest, finding that task order does not exceed scope of awardee's FSS contract and agency was not required to conduct discussions.
  • Hubbell Electric Heater Co., B-289098, 2002 CPD ¶ 15 (Dec. 27, 2001). Successfully defended against protest challenging agency's decision to select higher-priced offeror where protester failed to adequately address compliance with quality assurance standards.

State and Local Bid Protests

  • Protested award by California for Medicaid claims processing system.
  • Defended award by Florida to telecommunications carrier for dedicated network for state government agencies.
  • Protested award by Orange County, Florida for telecommunications services.
  • Protested award by Colorado for welfare enrollment services.
  • Protested award by North Carolina for IT equipment and services.
  • Defended against protest challenging contract award by D.C. to construct and manage convention center hotel.

Government Contracts Investigations

  • Represented major aerospace manufacturer in connection with espionage investigation.
  • Represented major aerospace manufacturer in investigation regarding potential export violations.
  • Represented major telecommunications carriers in connection with investigations into tax charges to federal government customers.
  • Represented major building automation corporation in connection with investigation into compliance with GSA schedule price reduction requirements.