|
 Partner
Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Suite 900
Vienna, Virginia 22182
Telephone: (703) 847-6300
Fax: (703) 847-6312
jpachter@smithpachter.com
View resume in Adobe PDF
Download a vCard
*AV® Peer Rated
. . . . . . . . . .
Practice Focus
Government Contracts
Representative Experience
A practitioner of government contract law for more than 40 years, Mr. Pachter has engaged in substantial litigation before the Boards of Contract Appeals, the United States Court of Federal Claims, Federal District Courts, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has prosecuted bid protests before the Government Accountability Office, the General Services Board of Contract Appeals, the United States Court of Federal Claims and Federal District Courts.
Mr. Pachter’s practice has involved dispute resolution in all areas of government contract law, including prime-subcontractor disputes, both in litigation and under alternative dispute resolution procedures.
In the bid protest area, Mr. Pachter’s practice has involved agency best value determinations, past performance, meaningful discussions, task order contracts, sample task issues, organizational and personal conflicts of interest, cost realism analyses, competitive range controversies, technical evaluations, bid mistakes, and other issues.
Mr. Pachter has represented a number of clients in the debarment area, and obtained the first reversal in federal court of a Service Contract Act debarment. Federal Food Service, Inc. v. Donovan, 658 F.2d 830 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
He has also represented and counseled clients on fraud and compliance investigations, audits, corporate governance and ethics, and defense of qui tam actions. Other work has included defective pricing, cost determination, requests for equitable adjustment, licensing of intellectual property, subcontractor performance issues, small and small disadvantaged business matters, terminations for default and convenience, GSA schedule contracts, task order contracting, multiple awards, commercial products and requests for government information.
In October 2007, the Department of the Army appointed Mr. Pachter to serve as Independent Monitor to supervise ITT Corporation's performance under an Administrative Compliance Agreement. ITT entered into that Agreement in connection with a Guilty Plea and Deferred Prosecution Agreement regarding violations of the Arms Export Control Act at the Night Vision component of ITT Defense Electronics & Services.
In 2004, the Legal Times recognized Mr. Pachter as a Leading Lawyer in Government Contracts. He has also been listed in Virginia Super Lawyers, and in Chambers USA, America's Leading Lawyers for Business. In 2007, Chambers USA included Mr. Pachter on its list of Nationwide Leading Lawyers.
Education
George Washington University
(J.D., with honors, 1966)
George
Washington University (L.L.M. in Government Procurement Law,
1970)
Tulane University (B.A., 1963)
Professional Qualifications
Former Faculty Member, George Washington University Law
School, Government Contracts Program.
The George Washington
University, Dept. of Engineering Administration, School of
Engineering and Applied Science; Professorial Lecturer, 1974-1980
U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General’s Corps,
1966-1970; Trial Attorney (Contract Appeals Division), 1969-1970
Publications
Author:
Set-Off As a Means of Collecting Government Contract
Claims, 3 Public Contract L. J. 163 (1970);
Government Collection Techniques, The Government
Contractor Briefing Papers, No. 75-6 (December 1975);
The Equal Access to Justice Act - A Step Forward,
ABA Public Contract Newsletter, Vol. 16, No. 2, January 1981;
Certification of Subcontractor Claims, ABA Public
Contract Newsletter, Vol. 19, No. 1, Fall 1983;
An Assessment
of Bid Protests Under the CICA, Contract Management
(September 1985);
The Need for a Comprehensive Judicial Remedy for Bid
Protests, 16 Public Contract L. J. 47 (1986).
What
is a Procurement? And Why Can’t DOD and the
Courts Get It Straight?, 34 Public Contract L.J.
1 (2004)
Co-author:
Extraordinary Relief from
Runaway Inflation --
A New Look at Public Law 85-804, National Contract
Management Journal (Fall 1974);
Law for Engineers,
The George Washington University (1975);
Recovering Legal Fees Under EAJA (82-2 Briefing
Papers, Federal Publications, April 1982);
The CACI Decision -- The Risk That Lack
of a Delegation of Procurement Authority Voids the Contract,
61 Federal Contracts Report 514, The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc., April 18, 1994; Techniques for Applying
Eichleay Overhead Recovery to Manufacturing Contracts,
63 Federal Contracts Report 104, The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc., January 23, 1995;
Feature Comment - Past
Performance As An Evaluation Factor - Opening Pandora’s
Box, 38 Government
Contractor ¶ 280, June 12, 1996;
Jumping On (or Off) the Eichleay Bandwagon: Do We Have
a Sticky Wickham? (31 Procurement Lawyer, 4, 1996);
Feature
Comment - Source Selection Provisions of the
FAR Part 15 Rewrite -- A Train Wreck Avoided, 39 Government
Contractor 578 ( December 10, 1997);
The FAR Part 15 Rewrite, Briefing Papers 2d, No.
98-5 (April 1998);
Feature Comment – Past Performance As An Evaluation
Factor-Getting It Right, 41 Government Contractor
1 ( January 6, 1999);
Medicare Contracting Reform, New Opportunities New Risks, 83
Federal Contracts Report 598, The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., June 21, 2005
Professional Memberships
Virginia State Bar;
District of Columbia Bar;
Federal and American Bar Associations (Chair, Section of Public Contract Law, 1991-1992; Section Delegate, ABA House of Delegates, 2005-present); National
Contract Management Association (Editor, NCMA Journal, 1983-1988;
Mid-Atlantic Regional Vice President, 1981-1983; President,
Washington D.C. Chapter, 1979-1981);
Advisory Board, Federal Contracts
Report, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
* "CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies."
Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories - legal ability and general ethical standards.
|
