Daniel E. Chudd

Daniel E. Chudd

Partner

Northern Virginia, (703) 760-7305

Education

Georgetown University (B.A., 2000)
Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 2003)

Bar Admissions

Virginia
District of Columbia

Clerkships

Hon. Mary Ellen Coster Williams, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (2006-2007)

 

Daniel Chudd is a government contracts attorney with significant experience in government contracts litigation and dispute resolution and avoidance. Dan’s interest in government contracts was sparked during his clerkship with Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. That experience, combined with his in-depth industry knowledge, has made Dan an effective advocate for his clients. In addition, a secondment with a major defense contractor gave Dan valuable insight into the everyday challenges facing government contractors. He draws upon these experiences to develop creative and strategically sound approaches to the myriad issues that his clients face.

Litigation Experience

One of Dan’s favorite aspects of government contracts litigation is the variety of different disputes and forums in which he has been able to practice. Dan routinely represents clients in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also represents clients in qui tam False Claims Act matters at the district court and appellate levels. Dan has also appeared before federal and state courts, administrative bodies, and the Civilian and Armed Services Boards of Contract Appeals. The subjects of these disputes have ranged from contract claims and termination disputes with a government customer to contractor and subcontractor disputes.

Dan is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and the state of Virginia and before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Fourth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States Court of Federal Claims. Dan also holds an active security clearance and has experience with Special Access Programs.

Counseling and Investigations

In addition to representing clients in litigation, Dan regularly counsels clients on pre-litigation and dispute avoidance matters, contract changes, and requests for equitable adjustment. He advises clients on matters related to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), as well as the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), Procurement Integrity Act (PIA), and other legal and ethical obligations. Dan also counsels clients on a number of cybersecurity and data security issues that impact government contractors. In addition, Dan represents clients in internal investigations related to government contracts matters.

More about Dan

Dan is active in the American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Section, serving as the co-chair of its Membership Committee and as a vice-chair of its Bid Protest and Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Data Protection Committees. Dan also serves as a member of the firm’s Litigation Associate Evaluation Committee and as Secretary of the Board of Directors of Homestretch, a non-profit organization focused on assisting homeless families in the Northern Virginia area.

When he is not practicing law, Dan enjoys spending time with his family, coaching Little League, and playing golf.

Protest of New Mexico State University, B-409566 (GAO 2014)
Represented Orbital Sciences Corporation as intervenor in a pre-award protest brought by New Mexico State University concerning the terms of a NASA Solicitation.  The GAO sided with the government and Orbital and denied the protest.
Protest of Navistar Defense LLC and AM General, LLC, B-407975.2, et al (GAO and Court of Federal Claims 2013)
Represented General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems in a GAO protest brought by Navistar and AM General, and continued by AM General in the Court of Federal Claims, concerning the award by the Air Force of a contract to GD-OTS for Ground Mobility Vehicles.  The GAO and the Court of Federal Claims sided with the government and GD-OTS and denied the protests.
MorphoTrust USA, Inc. v. Contract Appeals Bd. 115 A.3d 571 (2015)
Represented MorphoTrust USA in protesting the terms of a solicitation for the production of drivers’ licenses in Washington D.C.  After the District of Columbia’s Contract Appeals Board denied the Protest, the decision was appealed to the District of Columbia Superior Court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals found in favor of MorphoTrust and vacated the Contract Appeals Board’s initial decision.
IAP World Services, Inc., B-407917.2, et al (GAO 2013)
Represented IAP World Services in its successful protest of the Navy’s award of the base operating services contract for Patuxent River Naval Air Station.  Following the protest and re-evaluation of proposals, the Navy awarded the contract to IAP.
Fortune 100 Company
Represented a Fortune 100 company in a complex, multi-million dollar False Claims Act matter.  Following extensive discovery and summary judgment motions, the parties settled the matter favorably for the client.
Termination for Cause Dispute (GAO)
Represented a government contractor in its appeal at the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals of a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision terminating the contract for cause.  Following a mediation and additional negotiations prior to trial, the Agency reversed its decision and re-instated the contract.

Daniel Chudd has received the following rankings and recognitions:

  • Law360 2012: “Rising Star”
  • Washington DC Super Lawyers: “Rising Star” Government Contracts

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.