1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Michelle D. Coleman

Michelle D. Coleman

Partner | She/Her/Hers
Partner | She/Her/Hers
bWNvbGVtYW5AY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20=
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Michelle D. Coleman is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s renowned Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Michelle advises clients from diverse industries in connection with contract disputes and other government contract matters, including Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims and requests for equitable adjustments, terminations, prime-sub disputes, other transaction authority, and AI.

Michelle also has an active pro bono practice, representing clients as an attorney volunteer with the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. Michelle has helped multiple clients receive long term housing through the Rapid Rehousing Program and other permanent voucher programs. In addition to being a volunteer, Michelle serves as an ambassador and as co-chaired the firm's fundraising campaign for the Clinic for the last two years.

Prior to working at Crowell & Moring, Michelle served as an attorney in the Air Force’s Acquisition Law and Litigation Directorate, where she provided acquisition and litigation risk advice on procurements valued over $14 billion on major Air Force procurements. She also served as a trial attorney in the Air Force Legal Operations Agency, Commercial Law and Litigation Directorate. As a trial attorney, Michelle litigated complex contract disputes before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

As an Air Force litigator, Michelle litigated a broad range of issues before the ASBCA, including organizational conflicts of interest; small business issues; price realism analysis; past performance; NAICS code issues; technical acceptability; nonmanufacturing rule, brand name, or equal issues; construction claims; commercial items; terminations; assignment of claims; reprocurement; limitation of funds; release; differing site conditions; setoffs/withholding; and evidentiary issues. Among the construction cases, Michelle litigated a $28 million Air Force design-build construction claim involving complex differing site conditions and delay issues, and she also litigated and won a claim for alleged defective specifications, undisclosed information, constructive interpretation, and technical impossibility for a contract for the design and construction of an Air Force dynamic break test stand.

Before her Air Force career, Michelle was employed by a defense contractor, where she gained valuable government contract experience in her roles as a business analyst and a subcontracts administrator. Michelle’s government and contractor experience gives her the unique ability to take both parties’ perspectives into consideration when providing advice on government contract issues.

Career & Education

|

    • Department of Defense
      Acquisition Law and Litigation Attorney, Acquisition Law and Litigation Directorate, U.S. Air Force Headquarters, 2016–2018
      Trial Attorney, Air Force Legal Operations Agency, Commercial Litigation Field Support Center, U.S. Air Force, 2014–2016
    • Department of Defense
      Acquisition Law and Litigation Attorney, Acquisition Law and Litigation Directorate, U.S. Air Force Headquarters, 2016–2018
      Trial Attorney, Air Force Legal Operations Agency, Commercial Litigation Field Support Center, U.S. Air Force, 2014–2016

    • Kent State University, B.B.A., 2007
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 2013
    • Kent State University, B.B.A., 2007
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 2013

    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims

  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Board of Directors, Board of Contract Appeals Bar Association, 2018–2019
    • Program Chair, ABA Introduction to Government Contracts Course, September 6–7, 2017 and September 17–18, 2018
    • Co–Chair, 2018 ABA Federal Procurement Institute, March 14–17, 2018
    • Co–Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Federal, State, and Local Government Attorneys Committee, August 2016–2018
    • Vice Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Young Lawyers Committee, August 2015–August 2017
    • Vice Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Contract Claims and Dispute Resolution Committee, August 2016–2018
    • Vice Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Bid Protest Committee, August 2016–July 2017
    • ABA Strategic Alliances, Teaming and Subcontracting Committee Co–Author, Guide to Fixed–Price Supply Subcontract Terms and Conditions–5th Edition

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Board of Directors, Board of Contract Appeals Bar Association, 2018–2019
    • Program Chair, ABA Introduction to Government Contracts Course, September 6–7, 2017 and September 17–18, 2018
    • Co–Chair, 2018 ABA Federal Procurement Institute, March 14–17, 2018
    • Co–Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Federal, State, and Local Government Attorneys Committee, August 2016–2018
    • Vice Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Young Lawyers Committee, August 2015–August 2017
    • Vice Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Contract Claims and Dispute Resolution Committee, August 2016–2018
    • Vice Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law Bid Protest Committee, August 2016–July 2017
    • ABA Strategic Alliances, Teaming and Subcontracting Committee Co–Author, Guide to Fixed–Price Supply Subcontract Terms and Conditions–5th Edition

Michelle's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.20.24

CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email

In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. ...

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Represented a major government contractor in three-week hearing before the ASBCA for a $130M disruption claim.
  • Secured a $28M settlement for a major government contractor on foreign military sales contracts.
  • Secured a $11M+ award for a major government contractor in a prime/sub dispute before the American Arbitration Association and had the award confirmed before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland.
  • Secured a $1.5M settlement, resulting in 100% recovery, for a government contractor’s claim to recover monies improperly deducted from the contractor’s contract.
  • Represented a contractor in the preparation of a request for equitable adjustment (REA) that resulted in 100% recovery of nearly $9M.
  • Represented a Women-Owned Small Business in the preparation of a REA that resulted in 100% recovery of a $480,000 REA.
  • Counseled a number of clients on COVID issues and claims.
  • Second chair to a hearing as Air Force counsel in a $28M design-build construction appeal before the ASBCA
  • First chair to a hearing before the ASBCA as Air Force counsel that resulted in a denial of the appeal to overturn a termination for default.
  • Represented the Air Force in an appeal before the ASBCA which resulted in saving the Air Force nearly $100,000 in termination settlement costs and certain costs allowable under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
  • Successfully represented the Air Force in appeal before the ASBCA which resulted in winning a motion for summary judgment on the contractor’s failure to produce evidence regarding a constructive change.

Michelle's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.20.24

CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email

In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. ...

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.20.24

CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email

Speaking Engagement | 10.29.24

"Artificial Intelligence," 2nd Annual Midwest Government Contracts Seminar, Chicago, IL.

Client Alert | 6 min read | 10.29.24

OMB Releases Guidance to Advance Federal AI Acquisition

Firm News | 10.25.24

Emergency Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Hundreds of Housing Assistance Terminations
|

View All Insights

Practices

Industries

Michelle's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.20.24

CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email

In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. ...

View All Insights