1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Lorraine M. Campos

Lorraine M. Campos

Partner | She/Her/Hers

Overview

Lorraine M. Campos is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring's Government Contracts Group and focuses her practice on assisting clients with a variety of issues related to government contracts, government ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Lorraine regularly counsels clients on all aspects of the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) programs. She also routinely advises clients on the terms and conditions of these agreements, including the Price Reduction Clause, small business subcontracting requirements, and country of origin restrictions mandated under U.S. trade agreements, such as the Trade Agreements Act and the Buy American Act. Additionally, Lorraine advises life sciences companies, in particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, on federal procurement and federal pricing statutes, including the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992.

Lorraine has been ranked by Chambers USA since 2013, and she was recognized by Profiles in Diversity Journal as one of their "Women Worth Watching" for 2015. Additionally, Lorraine is active in the American Bar Association's Section of Public Contract Law and serves as co-chair of the Health Care Contracting Committee.

Lorraine joined the firm from Reed Smith, where she chaired their Government Contracts & Grants Team since 2010. Prior to that, she worked as a consultant for Grant Thornton, where she advised the Intelligence Community, analyzed the Department of Defense utility privatization program, and performed numerous Circular A-76 studies for the Office of Management and Budget.

Career & Education

|
    • Georgetown University, B.A., American government, 1995
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 1998
    • Georgetown University, B.A., American government, 1995
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 1998
    • Connecticut
    • District of Columbia
    • New York
    • Connecticut
    • District of Columbia
    • New York
  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Co-Chair, American Bar Association's Section of Public Contract Law, Health Care Contracting Committee

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Co-Chair, American Bar Association's Section of Public Contract Law, Health Care Contracting Committee

Lorraine's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.20.24

Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency: Another Blow To Federally Sponsored Affirmative Action Efforts

On March 5, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down a federally-sponsored racial preference extended to minority groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency (“Nuziard”). Plaintiffs, who are non-minority business owners, challenged a preference provided by the Minority Business Development Agency (“MBDA”), a bureau of the Department of Commerce, to “socially or economically disadvantaged individual[s],” defined to include African Americans, Hasidic Jews, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. The court struck down the MBDA’s presumption that such racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, finding the preference violated the Equal Protection Clause.   Nuziard, like the recent decision by a federal court in Tennessee in Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Ultima”), follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Pres & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”) and, like Ultima, advances the mission of activist organizations across the country seeking to invalidate race-based presumptions in federally funded and sponsored entitlement programs.  ...

Representative Matters

  • Completed a review of government contract compliance for the Federal Supply Schedule products and/or services of a major international software developer, a health care device manufacturer, an electronics producer, and an environmental consulting firm.
  • Represented various transportation companies before the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, and Research and Special Programs Administration.
  • Represented federal grantees, such as state and local government entities, in federal grant regulatory compliance and in securing or retaining federal funds as a grantee.
  • Developed and implemented government contract compliance programs for a variety of life science, security, and financial service companies.
  • Prepared voluntary disclosures due to government contract violations.
  • Represented a nonprofit company in the negotiation of an enhanced-use lease with the U.S. Army for property located at an Army installation in New Jersey.
  • Represented non-unionized transportation workers in civil litigation against the State of New York.
  • Counseled and submitted a SAFETY Act application for a small device manufacturer. The SAFETY Act protects companies from tort lawsuits arising out of the sale of "homeland security" products and services.
  • Counseled small and large businesses in the analysis and application of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations applicable to government contracts such as the Section 8(a) Business Development, HUBZone and Small Disadvantaged Business Programs; North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Size Standards; and Small Business Subcontracting Plans.
  • Represented and advised trade associations and corporations on campaign finance, government ethics, and lobbying laws.

Lorraine's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.20.24

Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency: Another Blow To Federally Sponsored Affirmative Action Efforts

On March 5, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down a federally-sponsored racial preference extended to minority groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency (“Nuziard”). Plaintiffs, who are non-minority business owners, challenged a preference provided by the Minority Business Development Agency (“MBDA”), a bureau of the Department of Commerce, to “socially or economically disadvantaged individual[s],” defined to include African Americans, Hasidic Jews, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. The court struck down the MBDA’s presumption that such racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, finding the preference violated the Equal Protection Clause.   Nuziard, like the recent decision by a federal court in Tennessee in Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Ultima”), follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Pres & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”) and, like Ultima, advances the mission of activist organizations across the country seeking to invalidate race-based presumptions in federally funded and sponsored entitlement programs.  ...

Recognition

  • Profiles in Diversity Journal's "Women Worth Watching," 2015

Lorraine's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.20.24

Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency: Another Blow To Federally Sponsored Affirmative Action Efforts

On March 5, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down a federally-sponsored racial preference extended to minority groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency (“Nuziard”). Plaintiffs, who are non-minority business owners, challenged a preference provided by the Minority Business Development Agency (“MBDA”), a bureau of the Department of Commerce, to “socially or economically disadvantaged individual[s],” defined to include African Americans, Hasidic Jews, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. The court struck down the MBDA’s presumption that such racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, finding the preference violated the Equal Protection Clause.   Nuziard, like the recent decision by a federal court in Tennessee in Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Ultima”), follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Pres & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”) and, like Ultima, advances the mission of activist organizations across the country seeking to invalidate race-based presumptions in federally funded and sponsored entitlement programs.  ...

|

Lorraine's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.20.24

Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency: Another Blow To Federally Sponsored Affirmative Action Efforts

On March 5, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down a federally-sponsored racial preference extended to minority groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency (“Nuziard”). Plaintiffs, who are non-minority business owners, challenged a preference provided by the Minority Business Development Agency (“MBDA”), a bureau of the Department of Commerce, to “socially or economically disadvantaged individual[s],” defined to include African Americans, Hasidic Jews, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. The court struck down the MBDA’s presumption that such racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, finding the preference violated the Equal Protection Clause.   Nuziard, like the recent decision by a federal court in Tennessee in Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Ultima”), follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Pres & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”) and, like Ultima, advances the mission of activist organizations across the country seeking to invalidate race-based presumptions in federally funded and sponsored entitlement programs.  ...