Photo of Daniel Russell Jr.

Daniel Russell Jr.

Dan Russell represents government contractors in complex, high-stakes litigation. Over the past two decades, Dan has served as lead counsel for some of the largest U.S. defense contractors in a broad range of contract disputes and tort claims, including cases valued well in excess of $100 million.

Dan has experience litigating contract claims and disputes before federal judges and juries, the Boards of Contract Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, including matters arising out of terminations, cost-allowability disputes, defective pricing claims, prime-sub disputes, and claims under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Dan has also represented contractors in a myriad of tort suits arising out of work performed for the federal government. Dan has unparalleled experience defending “contractor on the battlefield” tort suits involving contracts performed during wartime or other high-risk, contingency environments. Dan has obtained complete dismissals of tort suits based on an array of federal-law-based defenses, including the government contractor defense, the political question doctrine, federal preemption, and derivative sovereign immunity.

Dan has litigated a variety of other matters involving government contracts and uniquely-federal issues, including: cases brought under the civil False Claims Act (FCA); insurance coverage matters for federal contractors; claims against federal agencies brought under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act; and regulatory enforcement actions.

At the appellate level, Dan has argued cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit. He has also represented clients in matters before numerous other appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to his litigation practice, Dan regularly provides risk-mitigation counseling for contractors, with a particular focus on strategies to reduce potential exposure to tort claims and other liabilities in connection with the performance of high-risk government contracts.

Contact:Read more about Daniel Russell Jr.Email

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) serves as an important reminder that forum selection under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) can have consequences that extend beyond a single appeal. In Gilbane Federal v. United States, 182 Fed. Cl. 177 (2026), the Court transferred a contractor’s claim to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) even though the contractor could no longer have filed that claim directly at the ASBCA because the CDA’s 90-day appeal period had already expired. The Court concluded nonetheless that transfer was appropriate because a separate appeal related to the same contract was pending before the ASBCA.

The decision highlights two often-overlooked features of CDA litigation. First, forum selection is not simply a matter of choosing between the COFC and the Boards of Contract Appeals for a particular claim. Second, when multiple claims arising from the same contract are litigated in different forums, the COFC has broad authority to consolidate or transfer those disputes in the interest of justice and efficiency.

Continue Reading The Forum You Chose Yesterday May Control the Claim You File Tomorrow

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA” or the “Board”) recently issued a stark reminder that discovery misconduct can be case-dispositive.  In Venergy Group, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Board dismissed a contractor’s $4.2 million affirmative claim after finding that financial statements produced during discovery had been intentionally manipulated to support larger damages calculations.

Continue Reading Discovery Fraud Comes at a Price: CBCA Dismisses Contractor’s Monetary Claim as a Sanction

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “ASBCA” or “Board”) recently rejected an unprecedented request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to withhold publication of a Board decision on the merits in a construction delay appeal brought by KiewitPhelps.  In a decision issued on June 25, 2026 (released publicly on July 16, 2026), the Board held that it was bound by the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and its own rules to publish the decision, and that the Corps had not demonstrated a basis for overcoming that requirement.  This decision is noteworthy not only because the Board found no legal basis to suppress the opinion, but also because, as the Board observed, such a request had never before been directly presented to the Board.

Continue Reading ASBCA Denies Unprecedented Request to Keep Decision Out of Public View

A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) is a timely reminder that, when it comes to stop‑work orders, the clause the government actually invokes—not the one it later wishes it had—can be outcome‑determinative. In Wolverine Tube, Inc., ASBCA No. 63877 (Jan. 22, 2026), the Board rejected the Air Force’s attempt to retroactively recharacterize a stop‑work order and held that the order expired by its own terms after 90 days. Although the contractor did not obtain summary judgment on most of its claimed costs, the decision breaks new ground on how protest-related stop-work orders operate, what happens when they lapse, and how far the government can go in arguing that “stop work” really meant “stop incurring costs forever.”

Continue Reading Stop-Work Means Stop Work (…Until It Doesn’t): Lessons from Wolverine Tube

As fiscal year (“FY”) 2025 closes, both the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) and Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”) released their annual reports.  Together, the two reports provide a useful snapshot of case volumes, outcomes, agency trends, and procedural developments.  We break down the findings and, most importantly, what they mean for contractors navigating claims and disputes in FY 2026.

Continue Reading Top Five Trends and Takeaways from the FY 2025 ASBCA and CBCA Annual Reports

Since President Trump issued Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” on April 15, 2025 as part of an effort to remake Federal procurement, the Administration has undertaken a variety of initial steps to implement its so-called “Revolutionary FAR Overhaul” (“RFO”).  These steps include “streamlining” each Part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) on a rolling basis to remove “non-statutory requirements.”  To date, seven streamlined FAR Parts have been released on the RFO page of acquisition.gov:  Parts 1, Federal Acquisition Regulation; 10, Market Research; 11, Describing Agency Needs; 18, Emergency Acquisitions; 34, Major System Acquisition; 39, Acquisition of Information and Communication Technology; and 43, Contract Modifications.  The public has the opportunity to provide “informal input” for each Part—the soonest of which is to provide feedback on FAR Part 10 by July 7, 2025 at 4:30 PM ET.[1]   Although the volume of streamlined FAR Parts, non-regulatory resources, and commentary on acquisition.gov has started to proliferate in recent weeks, the extent to which these resources can and will be relied on in a strategic, accessible manner by the broader acquisition community still remains to be seen. 

Continue Reading Continued Signs of Progress in the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul

As reported and analyzed in recent posts, the Trump administration has begun implementing a number of new tariffs, including three sets of country-based tariffs (China, Canada, and Mexico) and Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. We expect further announcements of reciprocal tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, and other tariffs on specific items including lumber, semiconductors, and agricultural products. These tariffs raise significant concerns for government contractors.  We have outlined below five points government contractors should keep in mind when assessing the impact of these tariffs on their contracts.

Continue Reading The Trump Tariffs and Federal Contractors: In These Taxing Times, Contractors Have a Duty To Know These Five Things

On behalf of the Professional Services Council (PSC), this past week Covington filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the petitioner in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal (No. 24-758). The brief urges the Court to grant certiorari and, ultimately, to hold that government contractors are entitled to immediately appeal a district court’s denial of derivative sovereign immunity under the collateral order doctrine.

Continue Reading Covington Submits Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Brief Addressing Derivative Sovereign Immunity for Government Contractors
Dock Crane Aerial_jpg

A recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found the Navy liable to a commercial crane manufacturer for delay damages. In Konecranes Nuclear Equip. & Servs., LLC, ASBCA No. 62797, 2024 WL 2698011 (May 7, 2024), the Board reiterated the age-old lesson—you have to read the contract—and provided guidance about how to calculate the delay damages. Beyond that, the Board found apparent inspiration for part of its holding in an unlikely source: a classic song by the Rolling Stones.

Continue Reading You Can’t Always Get What You Want: ASBCA Channels Rolling Stones and Awards Contractor $4.9 Million in Delay Damages

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals has published its annual report for FY 2023, providing data regarding the number of appeals and contractor success rates at the Board.  The data illustrated a number of noteworthy points — and a few welcome trends — for the contracting community.

Continue Reading Contractors Had a Strong Success Rate Before the CBCA in FY 2023