John E. McCarthy
Overview
John E. McCarthy, Jr. is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and member of the firm's Government Contracts Group. John has spent more than thirty years litigating all forms of government contracts cases for both large and small government contractors, with a particular emphasis on bid protests. Because of John's strong engineering background, he has particular experience in technology related issues, including litigation regarding complex technology and data rights, patent and other intellectual property issues.
Career & Education
- Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, J.D., 1989
- Catholic University of America, M.S.E.E., 1978
- Rockhurst College, B.S.E.S., 1976
- District of Columbia
- Maryland
- Virginia
John's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.26
Don’t Get Left in the Doghouse: The Federal Circuit’s Global K9 Case and the Duty to Intervene
Blog Post | 04.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
Insights
GAO Breathes New Life Into The Commonly Denied 'Failure To Award A Strength' Protest Ground
|11.09.22
Westlaw Today
- |
10.14.22
The Licensing Journal
Goodbye Commercial “Items”: FAR Council Replaces Definition with Commercial Products and Services
|11.10.21
- |
11.01.09
Manual of Foreign Investment
- |
03.09.09
BNA's Federal Contracts Report
Lead Report: Court of Federal Claims Cases Reveal Ways to Recover Bid, Proposal Costs
|03.17.14
BNA Federal Contracts Report
New OMB Guidance Provides Acquisition Strategies for Modular IT Development
|06.19.12
BNA - Federal Contracts Report, Quoted
Thomson Reuters Names 16 Crowell Lawyers as “Stand-out Lawyers”
|03.07.23
SBIR/STTR Programs Reauthorized After Six-Month Lapse
|04.22.26
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
Revised SBA Regulation on SDVOSB Surviving Spouse Provides New Timeline for Spousal Control
|02.25.22
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
So Little Time — Challenging Insufficient Proposal Revision Response Times
|12.20.19
Crowell & Moring's Government Contracts Legal Forum
State Trade Secrets Claim Cannot Be Re-Litigated in Federal Court
|03.28.16
Crowell & Moring's Trade Secrets Trends
- |
12.01.15
Crowell & Moring's Trade Secrets Trends
ProLogic Drops $25M Trade Secrets Lawsuit Against Clients of Crowell & Moring
|06.10.15
Crowell & Moring's Trade Secrets Trends
GAO Releases Bid Protest Statistics for FY 2014
|12.03.14
Crowell & Moring's Government Contracts Legal Forum
Practices
- Government Contracts
- Cooperative Agreements, OTAs, Grants
- Intellectual Property and Data Rights
- IP Prosecution and Portfolio Management
- Litigation and Trial
- Government Contracts Transactions, M&A and Diligence
- Claims and Disputes Litigation
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Suspension and Debarment
- Bid Protests
- Government Contracts Transactions
- National Security
- GSA Schedule and Commercial Contracting
John's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.26
Don’t Get Left in the Doghouse: The Federal Circuit’s Global K9 Case and the Duty to Intervene
Blog Post | 04.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26




