Douglas C. Proxmire

Representative Matters

• Successfully challenged the Army Contracting Command's (ACC) plan to cease the work of a contractor (Al Pacific Ltd. Est. for Electronics (Al Pacific)) providing community access television services (CATV) to U.S. Forces in Kuwait by transitioning that work to another contractor's existing omnibus contract in Kuwait.  To achieve this result on behalf of Al Pacific, we convinced the army that issuing the planned modification to the omnibus contract violated the Competition in Contracting Act and would lead to increased costs to the ACC without resulting benefit.  As a result, ACC reversed course and continued to use Al Pacific services for the remaining term of the current ACC/Al Pacific contract, and ACC committed to competitively awarding the follow-on work through full and open competition rather than through a contract modification.  Protest of Al Pacific
• Represented tenants in the successful negotiation of a series of $100+ million tenant improvement contracts for the relocation of corporate headquarters for different entities in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia
• Prevailed in a prime v. subcontractor arbitration dispute arising out of a District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) streetlight project.  At the conclusion of the DDOT project a dispute arose between Citelum, a leading lighting technology provider, and a subcontractor over the entitlement to DDOT contract payments.  Both Citelum and the subcontractor filed competing claims against each other, seeking these contract proceeds.  After an AAA arbitration hearing and briefing, the AAA ruled that Citelum was entitled to the full amount claimed, and the subcontractor was not entitled to recover on its claims.  In re Citelum Arbitration 
• Submitted, with favorable results, GAO protest of the award of a Department of State (DoS) contract for the acquisition, upgrade, and delivery of two Beechcraft 1900D Aircraft to support DoS operations around the world.  To win the protest, among other things, TKCA established that DoS failed to consider the awardee's exceptions to the RFP's requirements when DoS awarded the contract.  In addition to successfully submitting the protest on behalf of TKC Aerospace, Doug subsequently represented TKCA when a competitor attempted to challenge the award of the re-competed 1900D Contract to TKCA.  As a result, DoS ultimately awarded the Beechcraft 1900D contract to TKCA, and TKCA acquired, modified, and delivered the specified aircraft to DoS. Protest of TKC Aerospace, Inc. (TKCA)
• Represented Hesco Bastion Ltd., a manufacturer of force protection barriers for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a contract award controversy before the Court of Federal Claims. In a 51-page decision, the Court ruled that the United States had properly awarded a contract with a potential value in excess of $500 million to Hesco. Among the Court's findings was that Hesco was properly awarded the sole source contract because only the Hesco product could meet the government's stated needs for the procurement. Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC v. the United States
• Represented American Home Assurance Company, a construction surety, in a dispute determining the rights of subcontractors to seek recovery under certain federal (Miller Act) and Virginia (the Little Miller Act) statutes on a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) project. After considering the issue, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted AHAC's motion to dismiss, ruling that neither statute applied to MWAA projects because MWAA is not operated by a federal or a state agency and is not subject to either of the statutes. Blumenthal-Kahn Elec. Ltd. v. Am. Home Assur. Co.
• Represented Hawaiian Dredging Construction Company (HDCC) after the navy rejected HDCC's low bids seeking the award of two construction contracts. The navy rejected HDCC's bids because HDCC's bid bonds on each contract were accompanied by a mechanically signed power of attorney (POA). The navy ruled that these mechanically signed POAs disqualified HDCC's bids. Upon consideration of HDCC's protest, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that POAs did bind the surety’s bid bond commitment to the government, and the surety's bid bond would have been enforceable had the navy needed to act under these bonds. This decision of first impression established precedent setting the standard for acceptable mechanically signed documents in a government contract procurement. As a result of this decision, contractors and sureties will be able to pursue government contract opportunities more efficiently and at a reduced cost. Hawaiian Dredging Construction Company v. United States
• Represented MWAA's awardee of the automated people mover (APM) system that will replace the mobile lounges at Dulles Airport. In the most expensive contract award in MWAA history, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed that MWAA properly evaluated the competing proposals when it awarded the APM contracts to Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA) over Bombardier Transportation Holdings, Inc. The Court accepted SCOA's arguments that SCOA properly complied with MWAA's Local Disadvantaged Business Enterprise and technical criteria when MWAA awarded the APM contract to SCOA. Bombardier Transportation Holdings, Inc. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 
• Defended a prime contractor against a subcontractor's delay and loss efficiency claim arising out of a construction project to build a "Damage Control" School at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the general contractor's motion and directed a verdict in the general contractor's favor at the close of the plaintiff’s case before the trial court. Reliance Insurance Co., et al. v. Pickus Construction and Equipment Co., Inc.
• Represented an architect/engineer that a prime contractor attempted to sue in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, arising out of a runway relocation project at Virginia Tech Airport. Successfully dismissed the general contractor's declaratory judgment action at the trial court level and the general contractor's appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. Allegheny Construction Company, Inc. v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and URS Corporation

Education

• J.D. Georgetown University 1987
• B.A. with honors Wake Forest University 1984

Bar Admissions

• District of Columbia
• Virginia

Court Admissions

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
• U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia

Professional Memberships and Activities

• Member, Court of Federal Claims Bar Association
• Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
• Member, Virginia State Bar, Construction Law Section
• Member, Virginia Trial Lawyers Association

• Legal 500, Government Contracts, 2015, 2022
• National Law Journal, Dealmaker of the Year, Washington, DC, 2013
• The Best Lawyers in America, Construction Law, 2025