Holdsworth & Inkwell
Government Contractors Litigation

Government Contractors Litigation

Specialized forums, exacting regulation, and cases that rarely fit the standard playbook.

Overview

Procurement Disputes, Understood From the Inside

Federal and state government contractors face a distinctive litigation profile shaped by the False Claims Act, contract disputes before specialized federal forums (the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit), bid protests, suspension and debarment risk, and complex regulatory compliance obligations including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, and agency-specific procurement rules. Defense contractors, healthcare services contractors, infrastructure contractors, and information technology contractors operate within a regulatory and litigation framework that has substantial financial and reputational consequences.

Holdsworth & Inkwell's government contracting practice has two distinct streams. The firm represents whistleblowers in qui tam False Claims Act actions involving alleged procurement fraud, grant fraud, and customs fraud, with particular activity in defense contracting, healthcare services contracting, and infrastructure-related federal procurement. Separately, the firm represents government contractors in commercial disputes arising from federal procurement, including subcontractor disputes, teaming agreement disputes, and prime-contractor commercial matters that do not directly involve government enforcement or False Claims Act exposure. These streams operate under appropriate conflict procedures and do not involve representation on both sides of the same matter.

Industry Considerations

The Realities of Federal Procurement

Government contracting runs on its own regulatory grammar. A legal question here rarely stands apart from the contract, the agency relationship, and the business behind it. The standard litigation read does not always fit a sector built on specialized forums and its own enforcement regime. The factors below are where that assessment starts.

  • False Claims Act and Qui Tam Exposure

    Government contractors face substantial False Claims Act exposure across procurement, billing, certification, and grant compliance activities. The treble damages and per-claim penalty structure can produce settlements and judgments in the tens of millions to billions of dollars in major matters. Defense contractors, healthcare services contractors, and infrastructure contractors are particularly active areas of FCA enforcement and qui tam litigation.

  • Federal Acquisition Regulation Compliance

    Federal contractors operate under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, and agency-specific procurement rules. Compliance issues span cost allowability, indirect cost allocation, organizational conflicts of interest, cybersecurity requirements (CMMC, NIST 800-171), small business subcontracting, and country-of-origin restrictions. Compliance failures can trigger contract disputes, FCA exposure, and suspension and debarment proceedings.

  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Federal Circuit Practice

    Contract disputes between federal contractors and the United States are heard in specialized forums including the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. These forums apply specialized procedural and substantive rules, and effective practice requires both substantive contract law expertise and familiarity with the forum-specific procedural requirements.

  • Bid Protest Litigation

    Disappointed bidders may challenge federal procurement awards through bid protests before the Government Accountability Office or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Protests must be filed within tight deadlines and require specialized procedural knowledge. The financial stakes for both protesters and intervening awardees can be substantial, particularly in multi-year contract awards.

  • Subcontractor and Teaming Disputes

    Federal prime contractors and subcontractors operate within layered contractual frameworks including flow-down obligations, teaming agreements, joint venture arrangements, and Mentor-Protégé relationships. Disputes arise from payment matters, performance disputes, allocation of cost overruns and contract changes, intellectual property in subcontract deliverables, and post-award teaming disagreements.

Attorneys

Counsel for Government Contractors

The attorneys below work with clients across defense, healthcare, infrastructure, and technology contracting. They weigh each procurement question against the client's wider exposure and operations, and carry a matter from first assessment through resolution.

Experience

Proof, Not Description

The matters below reflect the firm's work for government contractors, across procurement disputes, compliance questions, and False Claims Act litigation. Each one turned on its own facts and its own forum, from agency proceedings to the Court of Federal Claims. Together they show the range of the firm's experience in this sector. They describe work the firm has done, not a preview of how a new matter will go.

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.

Resources

Insights for Government Contractors

Government contracting turns on regulatory detail as much as courtroom outcome. The pieces below track issues across procurement compliance, False Claims Act exposure, bid protests, and contract disputes before specialized federal forums. Each reflects a live question worked through for a contractor or a relator, not a stock answer applied regardless of the facts.

Publications

Ongoing Coverage

The regulatory and litigation landscape for federal and state contractors shifts continuously, through new agency guidance, changing enforcement priorities, and evolving procedural rules in the forums that hear these disputes. The series below follow those shifts as they bear on defense, healthcare services, infrastructure, and information technology contractors.

FAQ

Specific to Government Contracting

A commercial dispute touching a federal contract raises questions a generalist litigation FAQ will not answer. The standard read on a contract term often shifts once the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Court of Federal Claims, or False Claims Act exposure enters the picture. The questions below are specific to this sector, drawn from what defense, healthcare services, infrastructure, and technology contractors bring to counsel most often.

1 / 2

The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.

Why Choose Us

Fluent in Procurement's Terrain

Contracting with the government rarely stays confined to one dispute or one forum. A performance disagreement can run alongside a compliance inquiry, an audit, or a challenge to the award itself, each moving on its own clock. Working comfortably across that terrain takes more than contract-law fluency. What follows is what that asks of the firm standing beside you.

  • Both Sides of the Table

    Most firms pick a lane and stay in it. We litigate from both sides of complex civil disputes, defending corporate and institutional clients in some matters and pursuing recovery for policyholders, relators, and property owners in others. That range is a working advantage, not a hedge. A firm that only ever defends learns one half of the board; a firm that argues both sides learns how the opposing party builds its case, prices its risk, and decides when to move. When we assess your exposure, we read it the way the other side will, because in other matters, we are the other side. Explore our @practice areas@/practice-areas@ to see where that perspective runs deepest.

  • Trial-Tested, Not Settlement-Default

    Many firms treat trial as a failure of negotiation. We treat readiness for trial as the foundation of every strong defense. A matter that is genuinely prepared to be tried is a matter negotiated from strength, because the other side knows the threat is real. Our litigators build each case as though it will be decided by a jury, which sharpens the strategy whether the resolution ultimately comes at trial, in mediation, or on a dispositive motion. That discipline informs how we staff, how we develop the record, and how we advise you on the choices that matter. Learn how we approach @trial advocacy@/services/trial-advocacy@.

  • One Firm, Four Offices, One Standard

    From our principal office in Sacramento to our teams in Atlanta, Denver, and Austin, Holdsworth & Inkwell operates as a single firm rather than a loose confederation of branches. A client in one region draws on the full bench of the firm, not just the attorneys nearest to them. That structure lets us assemble the right team for a matter regardless of where it sits, and it means our standards for preparation, communication, and judgment travel with the work. See our @office locations@/locations@ and the regions we serve.

  • Continuity from Intake to Appeal

    Description: Litigation that changes hands loses memory. We build matter teams that carry a case from the first assessment through trial and, where necessary, into the appellate courts, so the strategy that shapes early decisions is the same strategy that defends them later. Our @appellate practice@/services/appellate-practice@ works alongside trial teams from the outset, framing and preserving the issues that matter before they are needed, rather than arriving after a verdict to reconstruct what was lost. That continuity protects the coherence of your defense across the full life of a dispute.

  • Industry-Specific Bench Strength

    A defense is only as strong as its grasp of the client's world. Our attorneys bring sustained experience in the sectors where our clients operate, from energy and utilities to healthcare, financial services, government contracting, and manufacturing. That familiarity means we spend less time learning your industry on your dollar and more time applying judgment shaped by matters like yours. Browse the @industries we serve@/sectors@ to see where our experience aligns with your business.

  • Transparent Scoping and Staffing

    Sophisticated clients deserve to know how a matter is staffed, how it is budgeted, and why. We scope engagements deliberately, communicate the reasoning behind our staffing, and keep you informed as a matter develops rather than presenting surprises at billing time. The result is a working relationship built on clarity, where you can plan around our work because you understand it. That transparency is not a courtesy we extend; it is how we think a serious defense should be run.

  • Depth in the Hard Cases

    Some disputes are routine. The ones that bring clients to us usually are not. We have built genuine depth in the areas where the stakes and the complexity are highest, including False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, insurance coverage and recovery, catastrophic wildfire litigation, and large-scale electronic discovery. These are matters that reward sustained focus and punish improvisation, and they are where a firm built for hard problems earns its keep. Read our @insights@/resources@ for how we think about the problems at the edge of our practice.

  • Counsel, Not Just Litigators

    The best outcome is often the dispute that never escalates. Alongside our courtroom work, we counsel clients before litigation begins, helping them assess exposure, preserve their position, and make informed decisions when a problem first surfaces. Our @pre-litigation counseling@/services/pre-litigation-counseling@ brings the same defensive judgment to the choices that precede a filing as we bring to the courtroom, because the value of a defense firm is measured as much by the disputes it helps you avoid as the ones it wins.

One team, start to finish.

Bring Us the Specifics

You have the facts of your matter and a clear view of what is at stake. That is enough to start. Tell us where things stand, and the attorney who takes the call will carry it through to resolution.