More particularly, our firm provides construction- and engineering-related services in the following areas.

Construction Counseling
With the goal of avoiding disputes and the attendant costs of litigation, we advise our construction clients on various issues, including:

• negotiating and drafting agreements, subcontracts, purchase orders, construction management services and joint venture agreements;
• drafting and negotiating engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) agreements, particularly in the area of power plant development and related equipment; 
• the interplay between and among the various AIA^® families of documents;
• insurance and surety matters;
• administering design and engineering agreements, including "fast-track," fixed-price, cost-plus, design-build, build-to-suit and joint venture contracts;
• advising contractors and lenders in the construction process; and
• managing construction projects to avoid or minimize future claims.

Construction Claims and Litigation
If disputes become unavoidable, we have extensive experience in preparing, analyzing, defending and prosecuting virtually all types of construction claims.  We have handled trials and appeals in construction cases in state and federal courts across the country.  Many construction disputes are resolved in arbitration or by alternative dispute resolution, which provides a less formal setting but requires experienced counsel.  We have extensive experience with these processes, including:

• bid protests involving defective bid specifications, conflicts of interest, small and disadvantaged business concerns, "best value" determinations and related matters;
• claims for differing site conditions;
• schedule disputes, which can include issues such as delay, disruption, weather claims, acceleration and other causes for loss of labor productivity;
• federal and state false claims acts and other allegations of fraud;
• actions against payment bonds under either the federal Miller Act or the Little Miller Acts that have been enacted by various states;
• allegations of defective plans and specifications and related matters under the Spearin doctrine;
• federal Superfund and other environmental remediation projects;
• representing insurers and insureds in disputes that involve construction defects and insurance coverage questions; and
• computing and contesting damages according to various damage methodologies.

Recent representative projects, engineering and construction lawsuits and arbitrations handled by the firm include:

• Modern Continental South, Inc. v. Fairfax County Water Auth., 70 Va. Cir. 172 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. Feb. 9, 2006), later proceeding, 72 Va. Cir. 268 (Nov. 21, 2006). Following a three-day bench trial, the trial court granted our plea in bar to dismiss the contractor's $500,000 extra-work claims based on various provisions of the construction contract.
• Ryan Eastern Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc., 43 Fed. Appx. 601, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16181 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2002).  Successfully opposed the general contractor's motion to compel arbitration of a $9 million delay claim against the owner of a luxury golf course and residential community.  The case then settled favorably.
• Yates Constr. Co. v. Fairfax County Water Auth., No. 96-1946, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14862 (4th Cir. June 19, 1997).  Obtained summary judgment for the owner in this $2 million construction delay case based on the contractor's failure to comply with the contract's notice-of-claim and substantiation-of-claim requirements.  The district court's ruling was affirmed on appeal as a correct application of Virginia contract law and the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
• Triangle General Contractors, Inc. v. Fairfax County Water Auth., No. 96-1254-A (E.D. Va. 1996-1997).  Successfully moved for summary judgment in favor of the owner on the contractor's two largest claims (totaling $900,000); the contractor dismissed its remaining claims.
• CKS, Inc. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., Law No. 141818 (Fairfax County Cir. Ct. 1995-1996).  Successfully defended school system owner against the contractor's $1 million construction delay claim, which the trial court dismissed as a discovery sanction.  The contractor then paid the school system $25,000 to settle a counterclaim for liquidated damages.
• R.J. Crowley, Inc. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 41 Va. Cir. 55 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1996).  Successfully defended school system against construction delay and acceleration claims based on contract's notice-of-claim and substantiation-of-claim requirements.
• W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Sch. Bd. of Fairfax County, 980 F.2d 253 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 909 (1993).  Successfully opposed the contractor's motion to compel arbitration of a construction delay claim.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling that Virginia school boards lack the power under the "Dillon Rule" to submit to binding arbitration and that the Federal Arbitration Act did not require a contrary result.
• Represented large state university in a dispute involving a $40 million addition to its football stadium;
• Represented major contractor in a $5 million dispute with a subcontractor regarding demolition and construction of a new pier at the Norfolk Naval Station;
• Represented major contractor in a $5 million dispute with the federal government regarding demolition and construction of a new submarine pier;
• Represented large church in a $2 million dispute with its general contractor regarding construction of its sanctuary;
• Represented owner of therapy provider in a dispute with its general contractor regarding the installation of its septic system;
• Represented buyer of a major construction company and performed the due diligence relating to pending claims and disputes; and
• Represented major contractor in preparing and pursing multimillion-dollar claim resulting from construction of airfield in Iraq.