Matthew H. Solomson is Associate General Counsel with Booz | Allen | Hamilton in McLean, Virginia, where he serves as the company's primary government contracts attorney for its security market group, which focuses on work with Intelligence Community agencies. Prior to joining Booz Allen, Mr. Solomson was counsel in the government contracts and litigation practice groups of Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, D.C., where he concentrated on government contracts counseling and litigation, civil fraud, and general commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on disputes before the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Solomson has served as counsel of record in nearly five dozen such cases, and has appeared before nearly every judge of those two courts. Prior to joining Sidley, Mr. Solomson was a Trial Attorney with the Commercial Litigation Branch (National Courts Section) of the United States Department of Justice, where he was a member of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) litigation team.
Mr. Solomson’s first-chair litigation experience extends to disputes involving every aspect of the procurement process and contract lifecycle, including: contract formation, administration, and termination; pre- and post-award bid protests; constructive change claims and requests for equitable adjustment; cardinal change and breach of contract claims; and performance evaluation challenges. He has provided advice regarding, or has litigated cases involving, a wide range of procurement-related statutes and regulations, including the Tucker Act, the CDA, the Competition in Contracting Act, the Prompt Payment Act, the Anti-Assignment Act, the Antideficiency Act, the Small Business Act, the Service Contract Act, the False Claims Act (FCA), the Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims Act (FFCA), and an extensive array of Federal Acquisition Regulation provisions. At the Justice Department, he represented a wide variety of the largest military and civilian Federal government agencies.
Mr. Solomson graduated, with honors and Order of the Coif, from the University of Maryland School of Law. He also earned an M.B.A. (with concentrations in accounting and information systems) from the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. In law school, Mr. Solomson served on the editorial staff of The Business Lawyer, and, as a finalist in the school’s annual Myerowitz Moot Court Competition, was selected to the moot court board.
Following law school, Mr. Solomson served as a law clerk to Judge Francis M. Allegra of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and as an associate in the Washington, D.C. offices of Arnold & Porter LLP and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
Hernandez, Kroone and Associates, Inc. v. United States 95 Fed. Cl. 395 (2010) (granting motion to strike selected affirmative defenses and granting motion to compel; served as lead trial counsel in subsequent trial involving FCA, FFCA, and CDA fraud claims)
McHugh v. DLT Solutions, Inc., 618 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (successfully presented oral argument, resulting in reversal of Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals liability decision involving a software lease)
Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 100 (2010), aff'd, 656 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of performance evaluation challenge)
Maryland Enterprise, L.L.C. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 511, recons. denied, 93 Fed. Cl. 658 (2010) (cardinal change and declaratory judgment claims with respect to a $60 million build-to-suit GSA lease)
Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 74 (2010) (performance evaluation challenge)
Multiservice Joint Venture, LLC v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 106 (2008) (following evidentiary hearing, granting motion for monetary sanctions against counsel for intentional spoliation of evidence in fraud case), aff’d, 374 Fed. Appx. 963 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Cook v. United States 85 Fed. Cl. 820 (2009) (multimillion dollar claim for breach of settlement agreement concerning Fifth Amendment takings case and complex mining law issues), aff’d, 368 Fed. Appx. 143 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Distribution Postal Consultants, Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 569 (2009) (successfully tried case invovling breach of United States Postal Service contract)
Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 2008 WL 782740 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 20, 2008) (granting motion for summary judgment in case involving claims for CDA and PPA interest)
Biotechnology Industry Organization v. District of Columbia, 496 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (drafted amicus curiae brief in support of successful challenge to constitutionality of District of Columbia’s Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act)
Smith v. State, 394 Md. 184, 905 A.2d 315 (2006) (successfully petitioned for writ of certiorari to review criminal case involving novel Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and attorney-client privilege issues, and successfully briefed and argued case on the merits, resulting in unanimous decision cited repeatedly in leading Maryland treatises)
A User's Guide to Contract Disputes Act Claim Preparation: Tips and Tactics, 59 The Federal Lawyer 29 (Oct/Nov 2012)
2011 Government Contract Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit, 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 1013 (2012)
Department of Defense Transportation Contracts -- The Rules of the Road, Defense Transportation Journal (Feb. 2012)
When The Government's Best Defense Is A Good Offense: Litigating Fraud And Other Counterclaim Cases Before the U.S. Court Of Federal Claims, Briefing Papers No. 11-12 (November 2011)
Fiscal Matters: An Introduction To Federal Fiscal Law & Principles, Briefing Papers No. 10-7 (July 2010) (with C. Miller)
Congress Declares Checkmate: How the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 Strengthens the Civil False Claims Act and Counters the Courts, 5 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 295 (2010)
The Keys to the Kingdom: Obtaining Injunctive Relief in Bid Protest Cases Before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Briefing Papers No. 08-13 (Dec. 2008)
Contributor, United States Court of Federal Claims Bar Association, The U.S. Court of Federal Claims Deskbook for Practitioners, Fifth Ed. (Dec. 2008)
What Would Scalia Do? – A Textualist Approach to the Qui Tam Settlement Provision of the False Claims Act, 36 Public Contract Law Journal 39 (2006)
Current Issues in False Claims Litigation, Briefing Papers No. 06-10 (Sept. 2006)
Subcontractor Challenges to Federal Agency Procurement Actions, Briefing Papers No. 06-3 (Feb. 2006)
Patently Confusing: The Federal Circuit’s Inconsistent Treatment of Claim Scope as a Limit on the Best Mode Disclosure Requirement, 45 IDEA: The Journal of Law & Technology 383 (2005)