Big Law Government Contracts Lawyers Prep After Microsoft Snags $10B Pentagon Order
Oracle is represented in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by Craig Holman, who leads the government contracts and national security practices at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer.
October 29, 2019 at 02:30 PM
5 minute read
Oracle Corp., eliminated from the bidding war over a $10 billion U.S. Defense Department cloud-computing contract, on Monday pressed its federal court appeal, just days after the Pentagon awarded rival Microsoft Corp. the lucrative and highly contested government work order.
Oracle is represented in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by Craig Holman, who leads the government contracts and national security practices at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. Oracle's opening brief was filed under seal, and a redacted public version is expected to be available next week. Holman declined to comment about Oracle's case.
The appeal comes as questions fly over the Pentagon awarding the cloud contract to Microsoft. Rival Amazon Web Services, another leading contender, reportedly said it was "surprised" by the Pentagon's decision. President Donald Trump has openly and often feuded with Amazon's chief executive, Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post. Trump regularly derides news coverage of him that he doesn't like as "fake."
Oracle's appeal in the Federal Circuit challenges the contracting process. A judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where government contracts disputes are adjudicated, dismissed Oracle's complaint in July. Crowell & Moring's Daniel Forman, co-chair of the firm's government contracts group, represented Amazon Web Services as an intervenor—against Oracle—in the litigation.
Reuters reported Monday that Amazon faces two paths if the company decides to challenge the award of the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI, contract to Microsoft. Amazon could ask the Government Accountability Office to pause the award, or the company could sue the U.S. government in the Federal Claims Court, home to billion-dollar cases involving some of the country's biggest law firms.
Trump's appointed two judges to the Federal Claims court: Richard Hertling, a former Covington & Burling lobbyist, and Ryan Holte, formerly an intellectual property professor at the University of Akron School of Law. Hertling likely would not oversee any case involving Microsoft, a company for whom he lobbied while working at Covington. Federal Claims judges serve 15-year terms.
Eight Federal Claims nominees are pending there: Edward Meyers, a partner at Stein Mitchell Beato & Missner, the law firm where White House counsel Pat Cipollone once worked; Kathryn Davis, a senior counsel in the federal programs branch of the Justice Department's civil division; Stephen Schwartz, a partner at Schaerr Jaffe who litigates civil and administrative matters; Grace Obermann, an administrative patent judge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Eleni Roumel, deputy counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; David Tapp of Kentucky, a judge on the Kentucky Court of Justice's 28th Judicial Circuit; Matthew Solomson of Maryland, chief legal officer for the federal government solutions business unit of Anthem Inc.; and Daniel Epstein, a senior associate counsel in the Trump White House.
Oracle's case in the Federal Claims court challenged, among other things, the evaluation criteria the Defense Department used in the solicitation of the cloud-computing contract and the agency's decision to grant a single-award contract rather than a multiple-award contract. IBM Corp. also had sought the cloud contract but was eliminated from the competition.
Arnold & Porter's Holman said in court filings that the Defense Department, with Amazon's help, "delivered a conflict-ridden mess in which hundreds of contractors expressed interest in JEDI, over sixty responded to requests for information, yet only the two largest global cloud providers can clear the qualifications gate for this multi-billion dollar, single award" contract.
The Arnold & Porter team for Oracle included partner Kara Daniels, senior associate Dana Koffman, and associates Amanda Sherwood and Nathaniel Castellano.
The Federal Claims court determined Oracle lacked "standing" to challenge the contracting process. Dorian Daley, the Oracle general counsel, said in August: "We believe that the determination of no standing is wrong as a matter of law, and the very analysis in the opinion compels a determination that the procurement was unlawful on several grounds."
Justice Department lawyers fought Oracle's challenge to the award process. "Oracle merely second guesses discretionary business and technical judgments by DoD or raises meritless legal challenges," the Justice Department said in a court filing.
In the Federal Claims court, Amazon, then still in contention for the Pentagon cloud contract, was an adverse party to Oracle. "Oracle's complaint and motion gloss over, strip of context, or completely ignore the extensive facts that contradict its paper-thin narrative," Forman of Crowell & Moring said in a court filing. Amazon disputed any conflicts of interest marred the process.
Arnold & Porter's Holman in 2013 successfully represented Amazon Web Services in government contracts case in the Federal Claims court. A judge ruled in favor of Amazon in that case, which involved a cloud-computing contract with the Central Intelligence Agency.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter Regime Change, Syria Remains Liable in US Federal Courts for Alleged Assad-Era Terrorism Support
3 minute readSplit 4th Circuit Ruling Is a Win for Covington & Burling in US Army Base Attack Litigation
3 minute readA Conversation with NLJ Lifetime Achievement Award Winner Jeff Smith
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250