1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Attorney Fees for Claim Preparation Are Recoverable, Despite Contingency Arrangement

Attorney Fees for Claim Preparation Are Recoverable, Despite Contingency Arrangement

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.19.12

In SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (June 18, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims granted SUFI, represented by C&M, summary judgment, holding that SUFI is entitled to attorneys' fees as an equitable adjustment pursuant to the common-law test of foreseeability applicable to NAFI contractors when FAR regulations do not apply. The CFC analyzed SUFI's claim under the Federal Circuit's seminal Bill Strong decision, finding that, even under a FAR analysis, SUFI's claimed legal fees (calculated on an "hours times rate," or lodestar, basis) were not precluded by the existence of a contingency agreement and were recoverable because they were for contract administration, as opposed to claim prosecution.


Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26

GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm

The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”...