Craig A. Holman litigates claims, default terminations, and protests (pre-award, post-award, and size) involving federal, state, and local government contracts. Mr. Holman also defends False Claims Act cases and litigates commercial business disputes, including complex breach of contract and construction cases. Mr. Holman has litigated in various forums including the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the US Court of Federal Claims, numerous federal district and state courts, the US Government Accountability Office, boards of contract appeals, and the American Arbitration Association. Mr. Holman has numerous published decisions, some of which appear in the experience section below. Mr. Holman also has successfully resolved substantial matters without litigation.

Mr. Holman 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, US General Services Administration (GSA) schedule contracting, and federal contracts compliance.

Mr. Holman, by invitation, has addressed government contracts topics to, among other groups, the Boards of Contracts Appeals Bar Association Executive Policy Forum, Law Seminars International, and the National Contracts Management Association. He has appeared as a guest government contracts legal commentator on Federal News Radio. Mr. Holman also has authored a variety of articles on government contracts issues.


  • 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 US Court of Federal Claims and defending the court's decision before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • 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. 
  • Tetra Tech AMT v. United States and Dell Services Federal Government, 129 Fed. Cl. 169 (2016) (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.
  • 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.
  • Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 795 (2012) successfully obtained permanent injunction preventing removal of services from competitive procurement process.
  • 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.
  • CIGNA Government Services, LLC v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 100 (2006) successfully represented protester CIGNA Government Services, LLC in challenge to Competition In Contracting Act stay override under bid protest as arbitrary and capricious.
  • Kropp Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 537 (2005) successfully represented awardee Multi Service Corporation in defending Competition In Contracting Act override in matter involving national security interests.
  • L3 Unidyne, Inc., B-414902, B-414902.2, B-414902.3, Oct. 16, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 317 successfully represented L3 Technologies in 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 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 Services.
  • 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 seq., 2016 CPD ¶ 2 successfully represented contractor team arrangement protester CALIBRE Systems, Inc./Ernst & Young LLP in bid protest challenge to Defense Health Agency contract award.
  • Palmetto GBA, LLC, B-410597.3, Aug. 26, 2015, __ CPD __ successfully represented Palmetto GBA, LLC in 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 challenge of substantial contract award to CACI for geospatial analytical support services.
  • 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 where agency reasonably evaluated proposal consistent with solicitation's evaluation criteria.
  • Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., Jul. 3, 2013, B-408134.3, B-408134.5, 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.
  • 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.


Chambers USA
Government Contracts (Nationwide) (2010-2011, 2014-2023)
Government Contracts: Bid Protests–"Spotlight Table" (Nationwide) (2015-2023)
MVP: Government Contracts (2017 & 2018)
The Legal 500 US
Government Contracts (2021-2022)
"Leading Lawyer" Government Contracts (2015-2021)


  • 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

Email Disclaimer