Eric Herendeen
Overview
Eric Herendeen is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He advises clients on a wide array of performance dispute issues, including requests for equitable adjustments, CDA claims, cost allowability issues, and prime–sub disputes. He has represented clients before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to his disputes and litigation practice, Eric has also counseled clients through internal investigations to support disclosures to the government and to advocate before the Department of Justice on False Claims Act matters.
After graduating law school, Eric clerked at the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, where he worked with the judges drafting opinions and mediating cases concerning appeals of CDA claims.
Career & Education
- The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 2015
- Johnson University Florida, B.A., 2008
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Eric's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.17.26
In Danziger et al. v. U.S., No. 25-cv-1241 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 10, 2026) (a Crowell & Moring case), the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) denied the government’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking breach of contract damages for improper terminations in bad faith and/or abuse of discretion. The case involves hundreds of contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who were terminated in 2025 in connection with the dismantling of USAID. The government sought to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing that the complaint failed to sufficiently plead bad faith or abuse of discretion. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the complaint was “replete with allegations implicating bad faith,” and specifically rejected the “peculiar notion” “that governmental misconduct is immunized when a contracting officer acts pursuant to directives from higher-ranking officials.” The court also held that the government’s payment of certain termination costs was no defense to the contractors’ breach claim and confirmed that an improper termination for convenience entitles contractors to termination costs as well as breach damages.
Blog Post | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Blog Post | 12.17.25
Recognition
- The Best Lawyers in America: “Lawyers to Watch”, Government Relations Practice, 2026
Eric's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.17.26
In Danziger et al. v. U.S., No. 25-cv-1241 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 10, 2026) (a Crowell & Moring case), the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) denied the government’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking breach of contract damages for improper terminations in bad faith and/or abuse of discretion. The case involves hundreds of contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who were terminated in 2025 in connection with the dismantling of USAID. The government sought to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing that the complaint failed to sufficiently plead bad faith or abuse of discretion. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the complaint was “replete with allegations implicating bad faith,” and specifically rejected the “peculiar notion” “that governmental misconduct is immunized when a contracting officer acts pursuant to directives from higher-ranking officials.” The court also held that the government’s payment of certain termination costs was no defense to the contractors’ breach claim and confirmed that an improper termination for convenience entitles contractors to termination costs as well as breach damages.
Blog Post | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Blog Post | 12.17.25
Insights
ASBCA’s FY 2025 Report – A Look at the Numbers
|12.17.25
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
CBCA’s FY 2025 Report – Examining the Numbers
|12.17.25
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
- |
08.13.25
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
Eric's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.17.26
In Danziger et al. v. U.S., No. 25-cv-1241 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 10, 2026) (a Crowell & Moring case), the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) denied the government’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking breach of contract damages for improper terminations in bad faith and/or abuse of discretion. The case involves hundreds of contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who were terminated in 2025 in connection with the dismantling of USAID. The government sought to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing that the complaint failed to sufficiently plead bad faith or abuse of discretion. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the complaint was “replete with allegations implicating bad faith,” and specifically rejected the “peculiar notion” “that governmental misconduct is immunized when a contracting officer acts pursuant to directives from higher-ranking officials.” The court also held that the government’s payment of certain termination costs was no defense to the contractors’ breach claim and confirmed that an improper termination for convenience entitles contractors to termination costs as well as breach damages.
Blog Post | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Blog Post | 12.17.25
