The attorneys of Petrillo & Powell have experience in the acquisition of information technology, and have represented the following types of clients:
- Systems integrators from basic office automation through supercomputers and large mainframe systems;
- Manufacturers of computers from microcomputers through mainframes, and other computer and telecommunications hardware;
- Suppliers of commercial off-the-shelf software;
- Developers of custom software;
- Professional services such as facilities operation and management and other IT support services;
- Cloud service providers; and
- Telecommunications companies.
We represented the lead plaintiff at the Court of Federal Claims in the successful protest of GSA’s Alliant procurement.Serco Inc., et al. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 463 (2008). The court found errors in the technical, past performance, and price evaluations, as well as the best value tradeoffs.
In a case we brought at the Court of Federal Claims held that a modification to a competitor’s contract was outside its scope and improper. As a result, our client’s contracts were continued. CCL, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 780 (1997).
After the TMAC contract award was overturned on protest, we advised the IRS on how to make and justify a proper source selection. Although contract award was made to the highest-priced offeror, this second award decision survived protest and appeal. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., et al. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA Nos. 1176-P, et al., 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,401, aff’d, Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. v. Bentsen, 4 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
We successfully protested a Navy solicitation, on an all-or-none basis, for a ten-year contract for six types of mainframe computer configurations. The protest alleged that the procurement was overly restrictive of competition. PacificCorp. Capital, Inc., GSBCA No. 9733-P, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21,378.
We successfully protested a solicitation for computer equipment issued by SSA on the grounds that the price evaluation was inaccurate in assessing software charges and this error prejudiced our client’s technical solution. CCL, Inc. v. Social Security Administration, GSBCA No. 13573-P (June 5, 1996).
Through a variety of actions in different forums, we were able to prevent our client from losing a major maintenance contract to a poorly qualified small business concern. Control Data Systems, Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 520 (1994);Control Corp., B-253410, B-253410.3, July 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 127, recon. denied, B-253410, et al., 95-2 CPD ¶ 265.
We have helped prepare and negotiate contract claims, including several for facilities management contracts, on various grounds, including constructive change, defective Government-furnished property, and commercial impracticability.
We have successfully resolved by settlement a dispute about computer maintenance downtime credits for a client.
We have advised numerous contractors on intellectual property issues, including questions regarding code delivered on programmable read-only memories, commercial software, and special, never-licensed “keystone” technology.
We have successfully resolved several Inspector General audits under discount disclosure and “most-favored customer” clauses.
Joe Petrillo discusses changes over 15 years of IT procurement. GCN, Nov. 2, 2002.
An important case on intellectual property rights under DoD contracts. GCN, Mar. 14. 2001
A discussion of online resources for complying with Section 508 accessibility standards. GCN, July 20, 2001