Timothy A. Furin draws on his background as an acquisition law specialist in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps to help clients navigate the federal government procurement process. Mr. Furin is an experienced litigator who counsels and represents contractors of all sizes across all industry sectors in a wide range of government procurement law matters, including contract formation and administration, ethics and compliance, bid protest litigation, and requests for equitable adjustment, contract claims and appeals. Tim also has a broad range of experience with rapid acquisition (to include Other Transaction Agreements), stability operations, and contingency contracting. He has successfully represented both the federal government and government contractors before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Boards of Contract Appeals, and the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), as well as various other federal and state courts.
Prior to joining Ward & Berry, Mr. Furin served in the U.S. Army for 22 years, acquiring experience across the full spectrum of government contract and fiscal law matters. His final Army assignment was as the Chair of the Contract and Fiscal Law Department at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, the premier federal government provider of contract and fiscal law education. In this capacity, Tim was responsible for delivering instruction to over 3,500 federal government attorneys annually. Before his Department Chair position, Tim served as a Trial Team Chief and defended the Army and Department of Defense agencies against bid protests before the GAO and COFC, and litigated contract appeals before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal (ASBCA). Tim has also served as the Division Staff Judge Advocate (General Counsel) for the 1st Infantry Division where he was responsible for advising the Division Commander and staff on all legal matters, and as an Associate Professor at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School where he was widely recognized as the Army’s subject matter expert in bid protests, contract appeals, and contingency contracting. A former Infantry Officer and Army Ranger, Tim holds a top-secret security clearance and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his service in Iraq.
Mr. Furin holds several positions with the ABA Section of Public Contract Law and currently serves as a Vice Chair of the Contract Claims and Disputes Resolution Committee. He is also the Secretary of the Greater Philadelphia Chapter of the National Contract Management Association (NCMA) and a member of Law 360’s 2019 Government Contracts Editorial Advisory Board. Tim has completed the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s National Suspension and Debarment Training Program and is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia where he teaches all aspects of U.S. federal government contract law to our coalition partners.
Tim Furin is licensed to practice in the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia. He is under the direct supervision of an enrolled, active member of of the District of Columbia Bar during the pendency of his application for admission to the District of Columbia Bar.
- While serving as a Trial Attorney and Team Chief at the Army’s Contract and Fiscal Law Division, Mr. Furin led a team of eight attorneys and three paralegals who defended the Army and other Department of Defense agencies worldwide in complex litigation involving acquisitions of supplies, services, and construction before the GAO, ASBCA, and the federal courts. Tim managed a team caseload that included 148 contract appeals and bid protests, with the appeals representing over $419 million in claims and the protests involving over $20.2 billion in government procurements.
- Tim has personally litigated 38 appeals before the ASBCA with more than $210 million in controversy, and notably, he was a member of the litigation team that defended the government in the appeals of Computer Sciences Corporation, ASBCA Nos. 56162-56175, which together were valued in excess of $2 billion.
- Tim has personally defended the government against 49 bid protests involving over $1.5 billion in procurements before the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims, and notably he was a member of the litigation team that defended the Army in the Lockheed Martin Corporation, B-412056, B-412056.2, B-412056.3 bid protest before the GAO, which involved the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).
Contract Claims and Appeals
- Successfully negotiated a $4.9 million settlement of an ASBCA appeal on behalf of a construction company on a $40 million construction project for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Afghanistan. The significant issues in this case included: (1) government-caused delay, (2) government directed changes to the contract, (3) constructive changes to the contract, (4) the remission of liquidated damages, and (5) Eichleay damages due to an indefinite suspension of work and other compensable delays.
- Successfully defended against an appeal at the ASBCA following a hearing where the construction contractor sought payment of $3.8 million for breach damages and equitable price adjustments under a requirements contract for road maintenance and repair at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
- Successfully defended against an appeal at the ASBCA following a hearing where the construction contractor sought entitlement for diverted work under a requirements contract for the design and installation of an audio-visual system at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
- Successfully defended against an appeal at the ASBCA following a hearing where an AAFES contractor sought specific performance and breach damages while operating as a vendor at Sheppard Air Force Base.
- Successfully defended against an appeal at the ASBCA by obtaining summary judgment in a case where the construction contractor sought payment of $533,362 in breach damages for allegedly diverted paving, drainage, and civil site work at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
- Successfully defended against an appeal at the ASBCA by obtaining summary judgment in a case where the appellant sought payment under a non-appropriated fund instrumentality (NAFI).
- Successfully defended against an appeal at the ASBCA by obtaining summary judgment in a case where the appellant was terminated for default under a concession contract at Fort Meade.
- Successfully negotiated settlement of an ASBCA appeal on behalf of the Army in a construction case where the dispute involved payment for work completed and defective specifications.
- Successfully obtained corrective action following the filing of a GAO bid protest on behalf of a Joint Venture on a multi-million dollar federal construction project, affording the client another opportunity to win the contract award. Protest grounds in this case included: (1) the agency’s evaluation of the Joint Venture’s proposal was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria, (2) the agency failed to conduct a proper best value determination, and (3) the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions which prejudiced the Joint Venture.
- Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision in a $195 million procurement for logistical support and services on Army tanks and other vehicles in Hawaii.
- Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging the Army’s evaluation of the contractors proposed staffing and price proposal in a $15.3 million procurement for communications services.
- Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging a competitive range determination for maintenance, repair, and warehousing of war reserve material at six different air bases in the Republic of Korea.
- Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging the terms of a Request for Quotations (RFQ) and the Army’s earlier cancellation of an RFQ for the same equipment.
- Successfully defended against a GAO protest challenging multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision in a $52 million procurement for linguist services in Eastern Europe when the protester withdrew its protest following a GAO outcome prediction ADR session.