Skip to main content

Craig A. Holman represents clients in federal, state, and local procurement matters. Craig litigates claims, default terminations, and protests (pre-award, post-award, status, and size). Craig also defends False Claims Act cases and litigates prime contractor-subcontractor, teaming agreement, and joint venture disputes related to government contracts, including complex breach of contract and construction cases. Craig has litigated cases before various forums, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, numerous federal district and state courts, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, various boards of contract appeals, and the American Arbitration Association. Craig has numerous published decisions, some of which appear in the experience section below. Craig also has successfully resolved many matters without litigation.

Craig counsels clients on a wide variety of federal procurement law issues including, but not limited to, intellectual property protection, suspension and debarment, procurement integrity, terminations for convenience and default, personal and organizational conflicts of interest, anti-counterfeit compliance, the Buy American Act, the Anti-Deficiency Act, the government contractor defense, the Truth In Negotiations Act, the Defense Bases Act, the War Hazards Act, preparation of subcontracts and teaming agreements, cost principles, small business contracting, U.S. General Services Administration schedule contracting, and federal contracts compliance.

Craig speaks by invitation on government contract topics at legal conferences. Craig also has authored a variety of articles on government contracts issues.


  • Cahaba Safeguard Administrators LLC v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 318 (2023) successfully represented Karna LLC in defending corrective action issued in connection with earlier Government Accountability Office bid protest.
  • AccelGov LLC v. United States, 163 Fed. Cl. 43 (2022) successfully represented DirectViz Solutions LLC in defending a substantial National Science Foundation contract award.
  • Connected Glob. Sols. LLC v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 720 (2022) successfully represented HomeSafe Alliance LLC in a bid protest defense of a multi-billion dollar U.S. Transportation Command contract. 
  • Insight Pub. Sector Inc. v. United States, 161 Fed. Cl. 760 (2022) successfully represented Dell Marketing L.P. in defending a several billion dollar U.S. Navy blanket purchase agreement award.
  • BRSI, LP d/b/a Benefit Recovery v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board, Case No. 2022 CA 000344 P(MPA) (D.C. Sup. Ct., Aug. 30, 2022) successfully represented Health Management Systems Inc. in defending a District of Columbia Department of Healthcare Finance award.
  • Seventh Dimension LLC v. United States, No. 21-2275C, 2022 WL 3754862 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 29, 2022) successfully represented Seventh Dimension LLC in challenging an Army Special Operations Command solicitation cancellation.
  • ISHPI Info. Techs. Inc., B-420718.2, July 29, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 195 successfully represented ISHPI Information Technologies Inc. in challenging a U.S. Department of Energy blanket purchase agreement and two task order awards. 
  • Oak Grove Techs. LLC v. United States, 155 Fed. Cl. 84 (2021) successfully represented Oak Grove Technologies LLC in protesting a U.S. Army contract award.
  • XL Assocs. Inc. v. United States, 155 Fed. Cl. 726 (2021) successfully represented OST Inc. in defending a U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency award.
  • Deloitte & Touche LLP, B-420038, Oct. 28, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 353 successfully defended a Federal Bureau of Investigation award to Ernst & Young LLP.
  • Panasonic I-Pro Sensing Solutions Corp. of America, B-419260, Jan. 20, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 98 successfully defended sole source award to Axon Enterprise Inc. by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
  • Tolliver Grp. Inc. v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 70 (2020) successfully represented People, Technology and Processes LLC in challenging U.S. Army cancellations of two solicitations.
  • HomeSafe All. LLC, B-418266.5, Oct. 21, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 350 successfully represented HomeSafe Alliance LLC in protesting an approximately $20 billion dollar U.S. Transportation Command award.
  • Mythics Inc.; Oracle Am. Inc., B-418785, Sept. 9, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 295 successfully represented Oracle America Inc. in challenging the terms of a Library of Congress solicitation.
  • Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc., DCCAB No. P-1122, 2020 WL 8182314 (D.C.C.A.B. Aug. 20, 2020) successfully represented Health Management Systems Inc. in protesting a District of Columbia Department of Healthcare Finance award.
  • Protest of Grant Thornton LLP, 19-ODRA-00858 (Apr. 8, 2020) successfully defended a protest before the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Dispute Resolution and Acquisition challenging an award to Ernst & Young LLP. 
  • Inquiries Inc. B-417415.2, Dec. 30, 2019, 2020 CPD ¶ 54 successfully represented Inquiries Inc. in protesting a Defense Security Service award.
  • InGenesis Inc., B-416564.3, Nov. 26, 2019, 2020 CPD ¶ 120 successfully defended a nearly $500 million award to STG International Inc. by the Federal Occupational Health agency. 
  • iAccess Techs. Inc. v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 521 (2019) successfully represented L-3 Communications Integrated Systems L.P. in defending a substantial U.S. Air Force award. 
  • Advanced Mgmt. Strategies Grp. Inc./Reefpoint Grp. LLC v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl. 404 (2018) successfully represented Advanced Management Strategies Group Inc. and Reefpoint Group LLC in a bid protest challenging a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs award. 
  • Ernst & Young LLP v. United States, 136 Fed. Cl. 475 (2018) successfully represented Ernst & Young LLP in a bid protest challenging U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs award.
  • Goodwill Industries of the Valleys; SourceAmerica, B-415137, Nov. 29, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 369 successfully represented Goodwill Industries of the Valleys and SourceAmerica in challenging the General Service Administration's use of a full service lease procurement technique as violative of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act.
  • Cotton & Company LLP v. United States and Ernst & Young LLP, 133 Fed. Cl. 133 (2017) successfully represented Ernst & Young LLP in a bid protest defense by obtaining a subject matter jurisdiction dismissal of the protest. 
  • L3 Unidyne Inc., B-414902, B-414902.2, B-414902.3, Oct. 16, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 317 successfully represented L3 Technologies in a bid protest against towed array services contract award on a variety of grounds.
  • The Boeing Company; Bombardier Inc., B-417706, B-414380.2, Aug. 25, 2017, 2017 CPD successful¶ 274 successfully represented L3 Technologies in connection with proposed sole source award under the Compass Call program.
  • ASRC Communications Ltd., B-414319.2, B-414319.3, B-414319.4, B-414319.5, May 9, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 167 successfully represented awardee OST Inc. in connection with substantial Army contract for Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) Services.
  • Tetra Tech AMT v. United States and Dell Services Federal Government, 129 Fed. Cl. 169 (2016) successfully represented Dell Services Federal Government in defense of a substantial IT support services contract.
  • Worldwide Language Resources LLC v. United States and Mission Essential Personnel LLC, 127 Fed. Cl. 125 (2016) successfully represented defendant-intervenor Mission Essential Personnel LLC in pre-award protest related to estimated multi-billion dollar linguist procurement.
  • AAR Defense Systems & Logistics, B-413284, Sept. 22, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 274 successfully represented L-3 in defense of two billion dollar contract for aircraft support services. 
  • Deloitte Consulting LLP; Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.; CALIBRE Systems Inc., B-411884, et al., Nov. 16, 2015, 2016 CPD ¶ 2 successfully represented contractor team arrangement protester CALIBRE Systems Inc./Ernst & Young LLP in a bid protest challenge to Defense Health Agency contract award.
  • Palmetto GBA LLC, B-410597.2, B-410597.3, Aug. 26, 2015, __GAOCAB LEXIS 3, successfully represented Palmetto GBA LLC in a protest related to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Administrative Contractor award.
  • L-3 Nat'l Sec. Solutions Inc., B-411045, Apr. 30, 2015, 2016 CPD ¶ 233 successfully represented L-3 in challenging a substantial contract award to CACI for geospatial analytical support services.
  • Amazon Web Services Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 102 (2013) successfully represented contract-awardee Amazon Web Services Inc. in overturning GAO decision sustaining bid protest related to substantial cloud computing contract.
  • CACI Technologies Inc., B-408858, B-408858.2, Dec. 5, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 283 successfully represented intervenor-awardee Mission Essential Personnel LLC in defending substantial contract award.
  • Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems Inc., B-408134.3, B-408134.5, Jul. 3, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 169 successfully represented intervenor-awardee L-3 Services Inc. in defending protest of substantial contract award.
  • Exelis Systems Corporation, B-407673, Jan. 22, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 54 successfully represented intervenor-awardee L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC against protest of contract award.
  • Systems Application & Technologies Inc. v. United States, 691 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) successfully represented Systems Application & Technologies Inc. in challenging GAO protest related corrective action before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and defending the court's decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • Science Applications International Corporation v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 235 (2011) successfully represented contract-awardee Mission Essential Personnel LLC in defending substantial indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, multiple award contract.
  • Mission Essential Personnel LLC, B-404218.2, B-404218.3, Jun. 14, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 120 successfully represented protester Mission Essential Personnel LLC in award challenge where agency failed to reasonably consider an evaluation factor.
  • L-3 Services Inc., B-400134.11, B-400134.12, Sept. 3, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 171 successfully represented protester L-3 Services Inc. in challenging contract award where prior work by awardee's subcontractor resulted in organizational conflicts of interest based on biased ground rules and unequal access to information giving awardee an unfair competitive advantage.
  • Cases prior to 2009 available on request.



Chambers USA
Government Contracts (Nationwide) (2010-2011, 2014-2024)
"Spotlight Table" Government Contracts: Bid Protests (Nationwide) (2015-2024)
MVP: Government Contracts (2017 & 2018)
The Legal 500 US
"Leading Lawyer" Government Contracts (2015-2024)
Government Contracts (2021-2022)



  • J.D., The George Washington University Law School, 1993, cum laude
  • B.A., Boston College, 1990


  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • Various U.S. District Courts
  • Various U.S. Courts of Appeals


  • Public Contract Law Section, American Bar Association: Former Vice Chair, Acquisition Reform and Emerging Issues Committee; Former Vice Chair, Bid Protest Committee; Member, Task Force on Counterfeit Parts
  • Government Contracts Editorial Advisory Board, Law360 2012, 2013, 2014