Andy Howard is a litigation partner who represents clients across a wide range of industries, including construction, health care, aerospace, energy and technology. Andy’s practice involves representing construction industry professionals and federal, state and local government contractors. In his construction practice, Andy primarily represents contractors, developers and design professionals involved in complex commercial and public works construction disputes involving claims for extra work, defective work or design, delay and other time-impact claims. In his government contracts practice, Andy advises companies on the unique procurement and contracting policies and procedures contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and associated agency supplements and equivalent state procurement rules, on compliance with and in negotiation of government agreements, and on the standards for the protection of classified information under the NISPOM.
He assists government contractors in understanding the trade secret protection rules contained in the FAR and DFARS and in preparing or objecting to requests for public records under the FOIA and similar state laws. As an advocate, Andy represents companies in pre- and post-award bid protests and in various other types of adversarial proceedings involving government agencies at the local, state and federal levels, including claims prosecution proceedings and Administrative Procedure Act challenges.
- Counsel to an ENR Top 100 design firm in connection with disputes with the Corps of Engineers arising out of the design of additions and renovations to a medical facility located on an Army base.
- Outside government contracts counsel to an ENR Top 30 general contractor for federal construction contracts compliance and claims mitigation issues.
- Outside government contracts counsel to a Nasdaq company.
- Counsel to four technology companies that were sued under the civil False Claims Act and were dismissed with prejudice on successful pre-answer motions.
- Government contracts counsel to a Fortune 1000 company for preventing disclosure of privileged commercial information in response to a third-party FOIA request.
- Counsel to an ENR Top 10 contractor in the prosecution of its multimillion-dollar claim against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which settled in exchange for a substantial payment to the client and reversal of an unsatisfactory past performance evaluation.
- Government contracts counsel to an information technology equipment manufacturer for advice and compliance with domestic source restrictions in federal construction and supply contracts.
- Counsel to a defense contractor for bid protest and trade secret protection issues.
- Government contracts counsel to a defense testing company for the divestiture and commercial sale of a low-level nuclear radiography machine.
- Government contracts counsel to a national energy company for the negotiation of gas supply contracts.
- Government contracts counsel to a leading national health care services company, assisting in the preservation of trade secret and proprietary information, administrative protests and appeals in connection with various states’ managed health care programs.
- Government contracts counsel to a regional hospital authority in a facility reconstruction funded partly by public assistance grants administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for the first time recognized the validity of the implied certification theory of False Claims Act liability. The authors of this article discuss the case and its implications.
For the past several years, decreases in federal spending have forced government contractors to pay particular attention to finding ways to improve financial performance while maintaining and improving their competitiveness. Until recently, that focus resulted in corporate downsizing and other business restructurings.
February 3, 2015
Trends features updates on key litigation issues and highlights Alston & Bird's broad and diverse litigation practices. Our Winter 2015 edition is filled with a variety of short articles addressing interesting and timely topics.
January 7, 2015
Trends features updates on key litigation issues and highlights Alston & Bird's broad and diverse litigation practices. In this edition, we are pleased to share with you examples of our recent courtroom victories.
July 4, 2014
On March 11, 2014, the California Court of Appeal (1st District) issued its opinion in San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. ex rel. Contreras v. First Student, Inc. There, the court denied the defendant contractor’s motion for summary judgment in a qui tam case brought under the California False Claims Act on grounds that an issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant contractor’s implied certification of compliance with the commercial terms of its agreement with the San Francisco School District was material to the District’s decision to pay the contractor’s invoices. This decision has the potential of inviting more qui tam cases based on nothing more than a contractor’s noncompliance with the terms of its contract with a public agency.
March 25, 2014
August 13, 2013
“Past Performance Evaluations: New Rules, Same Challenges,” Law360, March 13, 2012.
March 13, 2012
- American Bar Association, Forum on Construction Law
- Pratt’s Government Contracting Law Report, board of editors
- American Institute of Architects, Contract Drafting Advisory Committee
- American Bar Association, Public Contract Law Section
- Associated General Contractors of America, SoCal Chapter
- National Contract Management Association, South Bay (CA) Chapter
- Recognized as a Southern California Rising Star in the areas of Government Contracts and Construction by Super Lawyers Magazine in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015