1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Zachary Schroeder

Zachary Schroeder

Counsel
Counsel
enNjaHJvZWRlckBjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Zachary Schroeder is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Zach represents contractors in both litigation and counseling matters. His practice focuses on representing contractors in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. His practice also includes federal regulatory and ethics compliance, as well as various aspects of state and local procurement law, including representing contractors in size protests and affiliation matters. In the transactional context, Zach has performed government contracts diligence for government contractors in a range of industries.

While in law school, Zach served as a judicial intern for Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also served as the chair of the 2017 Government Contracts Moot Court Competition and as an editorial staff member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Quarterly Journal.

Career & Education

    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
      Judicial Intern, Honorable Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams, 2017
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
      Judicial Intern, Honorable Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams, 2017

    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2017
      American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Quarterly Journal: editorial staff member
    • University of Delaware, B.A., 2014
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2017
      American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Quarterly Journal: editorial staff member
    • University of Delaware, B.A., 2014

    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Zachary's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26

Protester Beware: Recent GAO Decision Suggests Traditional “Reasonable Possibility” Prejudice Standard May Be Evolving

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....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Successfully defended the Army’s award of a large aircraft logistics support contract to a leading national defense contractor against protests by dominant providers of those services.
  • Successfully defended the award of a multimillion dollar Army fuel delivery contract against multiple protests before GAO.
  • Succeeded on multiple protests before both GAO and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s award of a large note servicing contract.
  • Counseled a leading national defense contractor on Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and indemnification remedies in relation to potential government disclosures of proprietary information.
  • Advised an international contractor on Buy America compliance for Federal Transit Administration funded procurements.

Zachary's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26

Protester Beware: Recent GAO Decision Suggests Traditional “Reasonable Possibility” Prejudice Standard May Be Evolving

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....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26

Protester Beware: Recent GAO Decision Suggests Traditional “Reasonable Possibility” Prejudice Standard May Be Evolving

Podcast | 07.10.26

All Things Protest: Blue & Gold and Late is Late

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.10.26

Federal Circuit Clarifies Application of Blue & Gold: Proposal Submission Deadline, Not Award, is the Operative Time for Filing

Firm News | 7 min read | 06.04.26

Crowell & Moring Secures Top Rankings in Chambers USA 2026

View All Insights

Practices

Zachary's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26

Protester Beware: Recent GAO Decision Suggests Traditional “Reasonable Possibility” Prejudice Standard May Be Evolving

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....

View All Insights