November 04, 2006 Meeting by eql16766



                  FALL COUNCIL MEETING

                                San Antonio, Texas
                                 November 4, 2006
                             Hyatt Regency San Antonio

Chair Michael Hordell called the Council Meeting to order at 8:43 a.m.


The reading of the minutes of the Council Meeting held at the Annual Meeting in
Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 2006, was waived upon motion by Robert Schaefer,
seconded by Jennifer Dauer, and approved by the Council’s unanimous vote. The
Council then approved the minutes by its unanimous voice vote.

Monograph from the Commission on Women

Chair Hordell announced that Previous Past Chair Patricia Wittie has been appointed
Editor of Perspectives, published by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession.
Wittie, who was unable to attend, asked Hordell to commend to the Council and Section
members the Commission ’s recent monograph titled, “Visible Invisibility: Women of
Color in Law Firms.” The monograph summarizes a Commission study began in 2005.
A copy of a letter from Wittie describing the monograph was distributed to the Council.
Information about the monograph is available on the ABA website at

Diversity Plan

Council Member Jennifer Dauer presented a revised draft Section of Public Contract Law
Diversity Plan. (This Plan is found at Tab 2 of the Council Book.) Dauer explained that
the Plan had been revised as requested by the Council at the Annual Meeting. Immediate
Past Chair Robert Schaefer moved the adoption of the Plan, and this adoption was
seconded by Dauer. Chair-Elect Patricia Meagher moved to amend the Plan as follows:

   ·   Revise the Preamble, second paragraph, second sentence (on page 1) to conform
       to the language previously agreed to by the Council (as reflected in the minutes of
       the Annual Meeting) as follows: “The Plan is not only a road map, but also a
       written commitment by the Section to assist and encourage the members and
       leaders of the Section to ensure full and equal participation for lawyers and non
       lawyer associates regardless of race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin,
       sexual orientation identify, or other individual differences.”
   ·   Revise Goal V, Objective A.1 (on page 8) to read as follows: “In planning each
       quarterly program, a speaker/moderator diversity goal shall be established by the
       Program Chairs with the assistance of the Section’s Membership and Diversity
   ·   Revise Goal V, Objective A.2 (on page 8) to read as follows: “Following each
       quarterly program, a report shall be submitted to the Section Council by the
       Section’s Membership and Diversity Committee stating whether the goal was
       met, identifying tools or approaches that were helpful in obtaining diverse
       speakers/moderators, and identifying any barriers to meeting the diversity goal.”
   ·   Revise Goal VI, Objective B (on page 9) to read as follows: “Ensure continuity of
       the Diversity Plan despite changes in administration leadership.”

Karen Manos seconded the motion. The Plan, amended as indicated above, was
approved by voice vote. Jennifer Dauer voted in opposition to the amendment. Chair
Hordell thanked Dauer for her hard work on the Plan.

General Counsels Committee – Change of Name and Mission

Chair Michael Hordell proposed that the Section change the name of the General
Counsels Committee to the Government and Corporate Counsels Committee, and that the
Committee become a Standing Committee under Division IV, General Interest. Hordell
also proposed that the new committee’s mission statement read as follows:

       Encourages participation of government and corporate counsel in the
       Section by providing informational meetings and the exchange of views
       between them, assuring that matters of common concern to government
       and corporate counsel are considered by the Section in arriving at
       positions on legislation and regulations, and when developing programs
       and symposia.

Finally, Hordell proposed that the new committee would sponsor the General Counsels
Dinner. Hordell explained that the changes are intended to bring in more government
participation. In particular, the committee will provide a means of participation for lower
level government and corporate counsel. In order to increase participation, the
committee’s membership will not, at least initially, be limited to members of the Section.
Hordell moved to approve the proposed changes, and the motion was seconded by
Immediate Past Chair Robert Schaefer. The proposed changes were then approved by
unanimous voice vote.

Legislative Coordinating Committee

Chair Michael Hordell asked Council Member Angela Styles and Vice Chair Michael
Mutek to discuss ways of expanding the role of the Legislative Coordinating Committee
(LCC) to more effectively disseminate information about potential legislation and other
legislative developments in order to allow the Section to provide timely input. Styles
stated that the objective was to make the LCC more like the Regulatory Coordinating
Committee. Styles noted, however, that obtaining information about potential legislation
is much more difficult than reviewing the Federal Register for regulatory developments.
Tracking pending legislation and other legislative developments requires reviewing the
Congressional Record every day. There is no service that provides a synopsis on
particular developments of interest. It is also necessary to continuously track all of the
relevant committees. Developments can occur suddenly, at any time, with little or no
discussion. The LCC has previously requested that the substantive committees appoint a
person to attend LCC meetings. The LCC needs this substantive expertise in order to
understand the significance of potential legislation.

Vice Chair Michael Mutek concurred with Styles’s comments, and stated that the LCC
presents an opportunity to provide value for the Section’s client – the procurement
system. However, we need substantive committee participation. The burden cannot be
placed entirely on the LCC. The substantive committees know about pending
developments and they know what is important. Hordell expressed frustration that many
substantive committees are not represented at the LCC meetings. Hordell noted, for
example, that at the last LCC meeting, at least 25 substantive committees were not
represented. Hordell stated that he would be sending a letter to committee chairs to
inform them that the committee must have someone participate in the LCC meetings,
even if by telephone.

Section 802 of the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Defense Authorization Bill –
Recent Technical Data Rights Policy Modifications

Vice Chair Michael Mutek reported on recent technical data rights policy modifications
resulting from Section 802 of the FY 2007 DoD Authorization Bill. (A copy of the
legislation and a fact sheet prepared by Mutek are found at Tab 6 of the Council book.)
Among other things, the bill amends 10 U.S.C. § 2321(f) to impose on the contractor or
subcontractor the burden of proving that an item was developed exclusively at private
expense. Mutek stated that these policy modifications could dissuade commercial firms
from entering the government market, thereby depriving war fighters of needed
technology. Mutek noted that this legislation is an example of the implications of the
Section not having sufficient information to participate in the legislative process. Mutek
pointed out that the acquisition system is our client. This is not a concern unique to
industry or the government. For example, this legislation is contrary to DoD’s policy, as
expressed in the DoD handbook on commercial items. It has been DoD’s policy to not
acquire more technical data rights than necessary. The DoD policy was criticized in a
July 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. GAO found that DoD has
not been obtaining sufficient data rights, and recommended that DoD program managers

assess their long term data rights requirements prior to awarding a contract. Michael
Wynne directed that program managers undertake that assessment. Shortly thereafter,
this legislation was introduced, requiring the long term assessment and requiring DoD to
obtain full rights. After conference, the second part was dropped, but a new provision
was added, changing the presumption regarding development at private expense. Mutek
stated that we will see a DFARS proposed rule and changes to the DoD 5000 series
acquisition regulations. Earlier this week, Mutek presented the issue to the Research &
Development committee, and asked for the sense of the committee on the implications of
these changes on the ability of DoD and prime contractors to encourage commercial
companies to participate in the government contracts market. The committee is going to
examine the issue and determine an appropriate response.

The Council discussed ways of providing input to pending legislation. Mark Langevin
observed that providing input quickly could be problematic given the time-consuming
blanket authority process. Chair Michael Hordell stated that we will have to do whatever
is necessary to speed up the process. Council Member Angela Styles stated that white
papers may be more helpful to the Hill. Styles pointed out that staffers may not be
lawyers and, even if they are lawyers, may not understand the effect of the legislation
they draft. Sometimes just explaining the issue is all they need.

Council Member Holly Svetz stated that § 802 applies only to major weapons systems,
and the legislation was driven by the statutory requirement that Air Force depots must
maintain a 50% organic capability. Maintaining an organic capability for maintenance
and repair requires having technical data rights. Svetz pointed out that the legislation is
more nuanced than it initially appears. A white paper could help explain those nuances,
and suggest ways of meeting the particular need without using overly broad language.

Council Member David Kasanow observed that much of what happens on the Hill
happens at the last minute without any consultation. Therefore, we need to be realistic
about our ability to influence legislative developments.

Immediate Past Chair Robert Schaefer cautioned that the Section should be careful about
white papers. If we start preparing white papers directed at specific congressional
committees, other ABA Sections may view it as an abuse of the blanket authority
process. Rather than using white papers, Schaefer said we should figure out how to
expedite our blanket authority process. Schaefer also noted that if we get into the
business of providing comments, staffers will start calling the Chair for the Section’s
position on issues.

Past Chair Allan Joseph stated that he agreed with Schaefer’s comments. Joseph stated
that blanket authority, particularly when expedited, has not been an issue with the
exception of issues involving labor. Joseph explained that the leadership of the Labor
Section is evenly split between management and labor. Consequently, the Labor Section
cannot take a position on anything, and they block anyone else from taking a position.
Joseph noted that the § 802 issue would be of interest to the Intellectual Property section.
In Joseph’s view, the impediment to the Section becoming more actively involved in

influencing legislation is what Styles described – so much is going on in so many places
that it is tough to track it. Joseph commended the discussion on § 802, and stated that he
personally found it very helpful. Joseph noted that the Section used to have presentations
on issues of significance to the procurement community at each Council meeting. Joseph
also noted that this type of discussion is a valuable part of the Council meeting,
particularly for those who are not in D.C. or otherwise in a position to keep up with
legislative developments. Joseph recalled that during that period, someone once said you
would be committing malpractice if you did not belong to the Section. Joseph expressed
a desire to bring back that type of discussion of legislative developments or other
significant issues. Chair Hordell concurred with Joseph’s remarks, stating that one of the
things he enjoyed as a new member was the discussions at Council meetings. Hordell
stated that one of the reasons he decided to showcase committees at the Council meeting
was to bring back the substantive discussions. Hordell stated that at future Council
meetings, he would ask the chairs of the LCC and RCC to make a streamlined report of
new developments.

Styles reiterated that the entire responsibility could not be put on the LCC. It is still
necessary to involve the substantive committees to discuss the implications of legislative

Council Member Sanderson Hoe stated that in running a committee over the last several
years, he had occasion to invite LCC members, including in particular Cathy Garman, to
speak at committee meetings. Hoe asked whether we could leverage that kind of
resource to help track legislative developments in order to bring it to the floor so the
Section could process it. Hordell responded that we have not done as good a job in that
regard as we wanted to. Hordell concurred with Hoe’s suggestion, and stated that the
Section will talk with Garman.

Vice Chair Mutek thanked the Council members for their views. Mutek noted in
particular that Joseph’s point is one we need to pursue. Mutek stated that in order to
provide value to the acquisition system, the Section needs to be aware of the issues.

Expansion of Section’s Relationship with Government Officials

Chair Elect Patricia Meagher reported that the Section officers have been discussing what
the Section can do to enhance its relationship with government officials. The Section has
already taken several steps in this regard, including:
   ·   Reinvigorating the Government and Corporate Counsel Committee.
   ·   Having the Regulatory Coordinating Committee review proposed regulations not
       only for constructive criticism, but also for opportunities to submit comments in
       support of the proposed rules.
   ·   The officers have decided to meet informally with one or more members of the
       FAR Councils to address the perception that the Section’s participation in
       rulemaking process is often adversarial, and to invite members of the Councils to
       participate in the Section’s committee meetings.

Meagher stated that she put this item on the agenda to let the Section members know that
the officers are looking at this issue and take it seriously. Meagher invited Section
members to submit suggestions or comments to her by email or telephone.
Chair Hordell asked whether there were any comments. Council Member David Innis
stated that Meagher’s comments were directed to the Section’s relationship with federal
government officials, but we should also take note of the Section’s progress at the state
and local level. Innis noted, for example, the National Association of State Procurement
Officers (NASPO) outreach efforts that led to NASPO’s greater participation in some of
the Section’s programs. (See discussion in the minutes of the Annual Meeting.) Innis
stated that the Section should continue to push at the state and local level, and look for
similar organizations at the federal level. Hordell noted that NASPO was going to
sponsor (in name only) the Second Annual State and Local Procurement Institute.

Section Response to Letter Regarding Article in the Procurement Lawyer

Procurement Lawyer Editor Mark Langevin reported that he received a letter from
Lindon Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of
Energy, regarding an article – “Jamming the Revolving Door, Making it More Efficient,
or Simply Making it Spin Faster: How is the Federal Acquisition Community Reacting to
the Darleen Druyun and Other Recent Ethics Scandals” by Stuart Nibley – which
appeared in the Summer 2006 issue of the Procurement Lawyer. In the letter, Brooks
expressed concern that the article unfairly maligned his former deputy. Langevin stated
that he reviewed the article, and it was fairly clear to him that the offending language was
quoted from a watchdog group known as the Revolving Door Working Group, and there
was a footnote stating that the quote did not reflect Nibley’s views. Nibley wrote a letter
to Brooks, after which Langevin had a telephone conversation with Brooks. Langevin
stated that Brooks told him his point had been made and he did not believe any further
response from the Section was necessary. However, Brooks said that if the Section
desired for its own purposes to publish his letter, he would not object. (Copies of the
article, Brooks’s letter and Nibley’s response are at Tab 7 in the Council book.)
Langevin recommended that the Section take no further action. It was the sense of the
Council that no further response was required. Chair Hordell thanked Langevin and
Nibley for their efforts.

Interest Income for Public Law Education Project

Chair Elect Patricia Meagher reported that Section Director Marilyn Neforas had
discovered that the Section was not receiving interest on its educational fund. Upon
further investigation, Neforas determined that the Section had not received interest for the
past three years. After several weeks of correspondence within the ABA bureaucracy and
with the help of the Section’s well-placed friends, the issue was favorably resolved. The
Section has received a retroactive payment for three years of interest, totaling more than
$10,000. To avoid similar problems in the future, the Section has changed the name of
its educational fund to a “program support fund,” which fits within a recognized interest-
bearing category within the ABA structure. Meagher thanked Neforas for her keen eye
and carefully looking out for the Section’s interests.

Recognition of Marshall Doke for Arranging Historical Tour of the Alamo

During the Annual Meeting, Past Chair Marshall Doke invited the Council and Section
members to join him after the Fall Meeting for a lecture and special tour of the Alamo to
be led by Dr. Stephen L. Hardin. Dr. Hardin was a technical assistant on the film, The
Alamo, and is the author of the book, Texian Iliad. Chair Hordell presented Doke with a
plaque in appreciation for arranging this special event.

Special Report of Task Force for Model State False Claims Act

At the Annual Meeting Chair Hordell appointed Paul Dauer to chair a task force to
review the Model State False Claims Act of 2005, which was drafted by the Taxpayers
Against Fraud. In Paul Dauer’s absence, Council Member Jennifer Dauer reported that
the task force would host its next conference call on November 9, 2006. (A report from
the task force is at Tab 9 in the Council book.)

Special Report of Task Force for Comparative Analysis of the Model Procurement

In the absence of Past Chair Norm Thorpe, Council Member Jennifer Dauer reported that
the task force for comparative analysis of the Model Procurement Code had made some
outreach efforts and contacted the International Law Section’s Procurement Committee.
As a result of these efforts, the task force determined that the Code was not in conflict
with the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). However, the Procurement
Committee suggested that there may be a potential conflict with the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The task force will continue discussions with the Procurement
Committee. (A report from the task force is at Tab 10 in the Council book.)

Law Student Division Report

Law Student Division Liaison Abby Raines reported that on October 16, 2006, the
Division hosted a Panel on Careers in Government Contracts, which was very well
received. Raines stated that she has established a Student Division website with a link
from the Section’s website. The content currently consists of information that used to be
on a flyer published for the Division. Raines welcomed suggestions for additional
content. Suggestions may be sent to Raines at Raines thanked
the Section for allowing her to come to the Fall program and Council meeting.

Highlights of DFARS and FAR Comments Submitted on Contractors on the Battlefield

Chair Michael Hordell asked Council Member Paul Haseman to discuss the highlights of
the Section’s comments on the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) proposed rules on contractors on
the battlefield. (Copies of the Section’s comments for both rules are at Tab 37 in the
Council book.) Haseman stated that the comments were extensive and covered many

different issues, but that there were two major points worth noting: (1) the change in
contractor security and (2) the change in contractor liability. The current DFARS rule
states that the military is responsible for contractor security unless the contract says
otherwise. The proposed rules would change this to say the contractor is responsible for
security except under four enumerated circumstances, as determined by the government.
Haseman noted that this is a 180 degree change. Under the proposed rule, the default will
be that the contractor is responsible for security. Because contractors will be responsible
for providing security, the risk of liability will increase for both the company and
individual employees. Haseman stated that the proposed rules also had blanket
statements, e.g., that all liability for use of any weapons rests with the contractor, which
could undermine existing defenses. Haseman noted, for example, that a suit against KBR
by employees alleging that KBR failed to sufficiently protect them while working in Iraq
was recently dismissed under the political question doctrine. The opinion dismissing the
case notes that KBR’s contract states the government is responsible for providing
security. Haseman observed that the result would probably be different under the
proposed rule. Haseman commended Michael Love and other members of the committee
for their hard work in drafting the comments. Haseman noted that Love prepared the
comments on the DFARS proposed rule, and Haseman prepared the comments on the
FAR proposed rule, but other committee members were extensively involved in the
drafting of both comments.

Council Member David Kasanow pointed out that the Fisher case referred to by Haseman
was one of six decisions dismissing Iraq contracting related actions under the political
question doctrine. Kasanow stated that the proposed rules are already starting to be used.
For example, the solicitation for the LOGCAP IV contract and two other smaller
contracts state that the contractor will be responsible for providing security. Kasanow
stated that as a consequence some companies have expressed reluctance to submit

Council Member Holly Svetz stated that the committee has collected a wealth of
information about contractors in the battlefield issues, which is available on the
committee’s website.

Council Member Stuart Nibley commended the committee’s efforts in drafting the
comments. Referring to the previous discussion about the Section’s comments being
perceived as adversarial, Nibley noted the negative and critical headings and that the
letter does not contain any praise for the drafters. Nibley suggested that the Section’s
comments may get a better reception if we add comments agreeing with the parts of the
proposals that do not present issues. Chair Hordell stated that Nibley’s comment about
the headings in the comment letters was interesting. Past Chair John Pachter stated that
there were undoubtedly suitable alternatives to words such as “inadequate” and “failed.”
Pachter suggested that Hordell should send a letter of appreciation to Love and the other
committee members for their efforts in drafting the comments.

Special Report of the State and Local Bid Protest Committee

Chair Michael Hordell asked Donald Featherstun to make a presentation about the State
and Local Bid Protest Committee. Before doing so, Featherstun took the opportunity to
make two comments. First, Featherstun stated that he agreed with Past Chair Allan
Joseph’s point about the value of having substantive discussions at Council meetings.
Featherstun observed that frequently, members cannot attend the Friday educational
program, and having substantive discussions at the Council meeting would make
traveling to the meeting more worthwhile. Second, Featherstun suggested that when the
Section has programs outside the D.C. area, we should modify our mailing list to include
groups in the local area. Featherstun described the activities of the State and Local Bid
Protest committee, and noted that the committee’s membership includes people from 12
different states. (A presentation about the committee is included at Tab 14 in the Council

Special Report of the Bid Protest Committee

Chair Michael Hordell asked Council Member David Kasanow and Kevin Mullen to
make a presentation about the Bid Protest Committee. Kasanow stated that the Bid
Protest Committee is one of the largest and most active committees in the Section. The
committee has over 130 members and more than 230 on its email distribution list. The
committee enjoys very broad and active participation by all of the groups represented in
the Section. Kasanow noted, for example, that there are often as many as 10 GAO
attorneys attending the committee meetings. The committee meets at Kasanow’s firm on
the third Tuesday of every month except August and December. The committee also has
a toll free dial in number for out-of-state members to participate. The meetings typically
have 45 to 55 people in attendance. Kasanow distributed a list of programs the
committee has planned. Kasanow also reported that the committee has agreed to rewrite
the Section’s Post Award Bid Protest publication and expand it to include pre-award bid
protests. Mullen stated that the committee is well run and benefits from a lot of activity.
Mullen suggested that the committee could serve as a model for the educational benefits
of committee membership. As an example of what transpires at committee meetings,
Mullen reported on three bid protests that were decided in October. Copies of these
decisions were distributed. Chair Hordell expressed his appreciation for the committee’s
work, and stated that he personally attends the meetings whenever possible and has found
them very valuable.

Special Report of the Privatization, Outsourcing & Related Transactions Committee

Chair Michael Hordell asked Stephen Sorrett and Council Member Stuart Nibley to make
a presentation on the Privatization, Outsourcing & Related Transactions Committee.
Sorrett noted that the committee covers an extremely broad subject matter area, and
works in tandem with the newly created Financing & Transactions Committee. (A
special report by the committee is in Tab 13 of the Council book.)

Council Member Sanderson Hoe stated that all of the committees have been looking for
different ways to attract people to come and to keep coming back. Hoe stated that
something that has worked well for the Financing & Transactions Committee is having a
roundtable discussion, during which a member of the committee is tasked with leading
the discussion on a particular issue of interest to the committee.

Sorrett stated that Vice Chair Michael Mutek has been actively involved in the
committee’s work. Mutek noted that the book of materials given to attendees was a
tremendous resource.

Principles of Professionalism in Public Procurement

Chair Michael Hordell reported that the Principles of Professionalism approved by the
Council at the Annual Meeting have been sent to the ABA House of Delegates. (A copy
of the Principles is in Tab 16 of the Council book.)

Long Range Planning Committee

Chair Hordell reported that the Long Range Planning Committee would henceforth meet
twice each year – at the Annual Meeting and again at the Federal Procurement Institute.

BCA Practice Working Group – Questionnaire/Survey

Council Member Stuart Nibley presented to the Council information on the Board of
Contract Appeals Questionnaire/Survey prepared by the Public Contract Law Section
BCA Working Group. (The Memorandum on the Board of Contracts Appeals
Survey/Questionnaire is found at Tab 17 of the Council Book.) Nibley lauded the efforts
of Richard Arnholt in preparing the survey. Nibley stated that working group received
approximately 250 responses to the survey, including more than 90 that completed the
entire survey. The working group is just beginning to analyze the results, and will be in a
position to make a more fulsome report by the Federal Procurement Institute. Nibley
noted that because the survey requested narrative responses about numerous issues, the
responses are not easily sliced and diced. The breakdown of respondents was
approximately 44% private bar, 22% government, 28% corporate, and 6% judges.

Federal Procurement Institute

Chair Michael Hordell noted that the Section will have Committee Officers training at the
FPI for those who missed the training at the Annual Meeting. (A draft outline of the FPI
program is in Tab 41 of the Council book.)

Sponsorship Opportunities for 2007 Programs and Meetings

Chair Elect Patricia Meagher thanked the sponsors for the Fall meeting: Gold sponsor
Rimkus Consulting Group, and Silver sponsors FTI and Moss-Adams LLP. Meagher
also thanked Richard Arnholt and Jenner & Block LLP for providing for the use of their

projector for the Fall program. Meagher stated that the Section has enjoyed extreme
support from our corporate sponsors and the Council and Section officers are indebted to
them. Meagher stated that as we move forward, we are learning to improve the
sponsorship program. (A copy of the current request for sponsorship is in Tab 20 of the
Council book.) Meagher noted that we already have two sponsors for the 2007 programs:
PricewaterhouseCoopers is sponsoring the FPI and Baker Donaldson is the Gold sponsor
for the Spring meeting.

Public Contract Law Journal Writing Competition

Secretary Karen Manos, who is also Editor in Chief of the Public Contract Law Journal,
reported on the results of the Public Contract Law Journal’s 2006 writing competition.
Manos noted that at the Annual Meeting the Council approved a significant increase in
the prize money for this annual competition – to $5,000 for first place, $2,500 for second
place, and $1,000 for third place (in the student division). This year, the Journal received
11 entries from law students but no entries from young lawyers. Manos suggested that
because the increased prizes were approved in August, it may have been too late for
young lawyers to write articles in time for the September 30 deadline. We received the
largest number of law student entries to date, including entries from schools other than
George Washington. Manos stated that in an attempt to increase participation by young
lawyers, she sent letters to all of the companies and firms that actively participate in the
Section’s activities, asking them to encourage their young lawyers to write articles for the
Journal. Manos thanked Editor Herman Levy for his work preparing and maintaining a
list of note and article topics. The list is available on the Journal’s website.

Young Lawyers Division Report

Young Lawyer Division Liaison Jenny Kim thanked the Chair, Council, and Marilyn
Neforas for their support of the Young Lawyer Division (YLD) activities. Kim reported
that on October 20, 2006, at the YLD Fall Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, there was
an hour-long session on the basics of government contracting, presented by Elizabeth
Newsom of Crowell & Moring. Approximately 10-15 conference attendees attended this
interactive, conversational session. The attendees from the Gulf Coast region were
especially interested in government contracting issues. Kim also reported that the Public
Contract Law Section is one of the sections that will be highlighted in the Spring 2007
issue of the YLD Supergroup Newsletter. Kim will prepare a brief profile about the
Public Contract Law Section for publication in the newsletter. In addition, Kim will
prepare a brief basics of government contracting 101 article for the YLD 101 database,
targeted at recently minted lawyers. Kim stated that the hardest part of recruiting for the
Public Contract Law Section was the young government lawyers, who do not see a
reason to join the American Bar Association, much less the Public Contract Law Section.
Kim welcomed suggestions to recruit additional lawyers from the government to join
both the ABA and PCL. Suggestions may be sent to Kim at

1423 Panel Update

Immediate Past Chair Robert Schaefer provided information to the Council on the
Section 1423 Panel. Schaefer reported that the Panel has recommended legislation
arising out of the Section’s recommendation regarding the presumption of good faith.
The issue of interest on contract claims proved to be more complex. Schaefer stated that
he understands the Panel intends to recommend that Congress take a look at the interest
issue but will not make any specific recommendations. Schaefer thanked Council
Member Stuart Nibley, Section Delegate John Pachter, and Section Past Chair Ruth Burg
for their presentations to the Panel on behalf of the Section.

Second Annual State & Local Procurement Symposium

Chair Michael Hordell commended Nancy Harrison and Robert Metzger for their work
preparing the Second Annual State and Local Procurement Symposium to be held on
May 17-18, 2006 in Nashville. (A copy of the draft program for the symposium is in Tab
41 of the Council book.)

Budget Officer’s Report

In the absence of Budget Officer Carol Park-Conroy, Chair Michael Hordell provided the
Section with a report of the Section’s finances. Hordell noted that the publications
revenues are particularly strong this year, totaling approximately $50,000. (The Section’s
Financial Report is found at Tab 41 of the Council Book.)


At 11:01 a.m., upon motion properly made, seconded and approved by the Council, Chair
Hordell adjourned the meeting.

Karen L. Manos
Section of Public Contract Law
American Bar Association

                           ATTENDANCE ROSTER

     Last Name        First Name            Title          Phone Number
Rector           Richard            Council Member       202-861-6426
Somers           Jeri               Council Member       202-366-4305
Dauer            Jennifer           Council Member       916-492-5073
Innis            David              Council Member       415-956-2828
Ehrhart          David              Council Member       937-257-6513
Svetz            Holly              Council Member       703-394-2261
Nibley           Stuart             Council Member       202-508-4334
Joseph           Allan              Past Chair           415-365-5333
Pachter          John               Past Chair
Burg             Ruth               Past Chair           202-338-0254
Schaefer         Robert             Immediate Past       310-893-1609
Manos            Karen              Secretary            202-955-8536
Meagher          Patricia           Chair-elect          415-362-6517
Hordell          Michael            Chair                202-220-1232
Mutek            Michael            Vice-Chair           972-205-5177
Styles           Angela             Council Member       202-626-1573
Kim              Jenny              YLD Liaison          202-626-1571
Pickens          Scott              Council Member       202-663-8843
Hoe              Sandy              Council Member       202-496-7562
Haseman          Paul               Council Member       303-344-6102
Doke             Marshall           Past Chair
Raines           Abby               Law Student Div.
Rose             Warren M. (Mike)   Chief Counsel,       505-234-7319
Feanny           Tracy              Counsel, Dell Inc.   512-723-6750
Kohn             Phillip            Moss-Adams LLP       310-612-6898
Drabkin          Aaron              Counsel, MicroTech   703-891-1073
Morrison         Kent               Partner, Crowell &   202-624-2610
Featherstun      Don                Seyfarth Shaw        415-544-1088
Heckman          Annejanette        Senior Counsel,      703-456-2396
Owren-Wiest      Nicole             Attorney, Wiley      202-719-7430
                                    Rein & Fielding
Davis            Phillip            Wiley Rein &         202-719-7044
                                    Fielding LLP
Peterson         Alan               Managing Director    312-583-2731

Langevin      Mark               Editor, Procurement    310-201-3476
Branstetter   R.W.               Co-Chair,              703-697-9350
Arnholt       Richard            Attorney, Jenner &     202-639-6025
                                 Block LLP
Statts        Dennis             Managing Director      617-748-8350
Donohue       Anne               Chief Legal Officer,   703-227-7062
Weiner        Heather Kilgore    Attorney, Pepper       202-220-1212
                                 Hamilton, LLP
Bamford       Sean P.            Attorney, Pepper       202-220-1217
                                 Hamilton, LLP
Kasanow       David              Co-Chair, Bid          202-496-7194
                                 Protest Committee
Levy          Herman             Legal Editor           703-698-5246
Swain         Elizabeth Curtis   Corporate Counsel,     302-892-7635
Sorett        Stephen            Chair, Privatization   202-496-7260
Moss          Fred               Editor, Proceedings    972-679-5377
Doyle         Alison             Co-Chair, Prof.        202-496-7604
                                 Resp. & Proc.
                                 Ethics – Co-Chair,
                                 Small Bus & Other


To top