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

Last week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) lawsuit against General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (“GDIT”), on the basis that GDIT was immune from suit as a government contractor under what is known as the “Yearsley doctrine.”  Craig Cunningham v. GDIT, No. 17-1592 (Apr. 24, 2018). The decision follows a long line of Fourth Circuit decisions in which contractors have been granted protection from liability when they perform work that supports important governmental functions. 
Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Embraces Expansive View of Derivative Sovereign Immunity for Government Contractors

Construction contractors take note: the government contractor defense is alive and well in the Fifth Circuit. In Sewell v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that construction companies can successfully assert the government contractor defense in response to tort lawsuits that arise from their performance of federal public works and infrastructure projects. This is a welcomed decision in the Fifth Circuit, which had signaled in recent years that a higher level of proof may be required to establish the first element of the defense ─ i.e., that the government meaningfully reviewed and approved reasonably precise specifications for the allegedly defective construction feature.

The Sewell case illustrates that ─ with the right litigation strategy and a skillfully crafted evidentiary record ─ construction contractors may well prove the defense in cases involving even “rudimentary or general construction features.”
Continue Reading Construction Contractors: The Government Contractor Defense is Alive and Well in the Fifth Circuit

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recently released a study of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program’s (“OFCCP” or the “Agency”) oversight functions for fiscal years 2010 to 2015.  GAO’s report explains that “OFCCP has not found violations in the vast majority of its compliance evaluations,” noting that in the time period GAO studied, OFCCP found violations in 17% of evaluations.  GAO pointed out that OFCCP resolved 99 percent of these violations through agreements between the agency and contractor that outlined remedial measures. 
Continue Reading The GAO Is Not Down With OFCCP: Report Criticizes Agency’s “Weak” Compliance Evaluations and May Trigger Increased Contractor Oversight

In REB ROWE Services, LLC; General Services Administration–Reconsideration, B-410001.6; B-410001.7 (Apr. 4, 2016), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently denied a request for reconsideration and clarified that protest grounds are interpreted broadly for timeliness purposes. This decision is a reminder for protestors and intervenors alike that seemingly untimely protest grounds may still be revived if they involve “the same essential elements” as timely filed protest allegations.

In the underlying procurement, the agency’s evaluation had determined the protestor’s price was unrealistic and assessed performance risk based upon the unrealistically low price.  The initial protest was timely filed, and the protestor filed comments on the agency report 11 days after the agency report was filed.  The protestor did not specifically invoke price realism until it filed its comments.  GAO sustained the protest based on the agency’s unreasonable price realism analysis, holding that the agency failed to evaluate the protestor’s unique staffing approach during the price realism analysis; “instead [the agency] simply compared [the protestor’s] price to the government estimate and other offerors’ prices.”Continue Reading GAO Rejects Timeliness Challenge Because “Essential Elements” of Protest Were Timely Filed

Recent decisions by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) and the Court of Federal Claims offer important advice to anyone in the process of drafting and negotiating a mentor/protégé joint venture agreement:  Be specific.  Those agreements, in many cases, are the crown jewel of the mentor-protégé program enabling mentors and protégés to work together on set-aside opportunities that they would not otherwise have been eligible.  And like anything of great value, it should not be taken for granted.  Instead, as a matter of meeting both regulatory requirements and best practice, mentor/protégé joint venture agreements should specifically list all resources, equipment and facilities (and their estimated values) that each party will provide and detail how work will be shared between the joint venture members.
Continue Reading OHA and COFC Agree: Mentor/Protégé JV Agreements Must Be Specific to Avoid Affiliation