1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Anuj Vohra

Anuj Vohra

Partner
Partner
YXZvaHJhQGNyb3dlbGwuY29t
VCard
VCard

Areas of Focus

Overview

Contractors at an impasse with their government customers turn to Anuj Vohra for creative solutions; decisive, actionable guidance; and effective advocacy.  

Anuj litigates on behalf of government contractors across industry sectors in a variety of forums, with extensive experience in bid protests before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. He also assists clients with an array of issues related to contract formation (including subcontracts, teaming agreements, and other transaction agreements), regulatory compliance, internal and government-facing investigations, suspension and debarment, organizational conflicts of interest, and the Freedom of Information Act.

Prior to entering private practice, Anuj spent six years as a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch. At DOJ, he was a member of the Bid Protest Team—which handles the department’s most complex protests—and served as lead counsel in dozens of matters representing the United States in commercial disputes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Career & Education

|

    • Department of Justice: Civil Division
      Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, 2006–2012
    • Illinois
      Assistant Corporation Counsel, Constitutional and Commercial Litigation Division, City of Chicago Department of Law, 2003–2006
    • Department of Justice: Civil Division
      Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, 2006–2012
    • Illinois
      Assistant Corporation Counsel, Constitutional and Commercial Litigation Division, City of Chicago Department of Law, 2003–2006

    • University of Michigan, B.A.
    • University of Illinois College of Law, J.D., cum laude
    • University of Michigan, B.A.
    • University of Illinois College of Law, J.D., cum laude

    • District of Columbia
    • District of Columbia

  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association, Section of Public Contract Law, Co-Chair, Bid Protest Committee
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association
    • South Asian Bar Association

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association, Section of Public Contract Law, Co-Chair, Bid Protest Committee
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association
    • South Asian Bar Association

Anuj's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.03.25

COFC Holds That Federal PLA Mandate Is Unlawful; Reinterprets Blue and Gold Waiver Rule

In MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) held that the provisions of FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 (collectively, the “PLA mandate”), which required the use of project labor agreements (“PLAs”) on large-scale federal construction projects valued above or at a certain threshold, violated the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). As we previously reported here, former-President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 in February 2022, instructing federal agencies to require construction contractors and subcontractors on projects valued at $35 million or more to “agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to” a PLA. A few months later, the FAR Council promulgated a final rule implementing the executive order in FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34. ...

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • LightBox Parent, LP, B-420032.2 (Feb. 24, 2022); LightBox Parent, LP v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 143 (Sept. 14, 2022)—Served as lead counsel in the successful defense of an awarded $50 million Federal Communications Commission contract for data mapping services in serial bid protests filed at the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims. 
  • VAS Realty, LLC v. United States, 26 F.4th 945 (Fed. Cir. 2022)—Served as lead counsel in the successful appeal of a trial court dismissal of a General Services Administration lease offeror’s bid protest for lack of standing. The decision is being remanded to the Court of Federal Claims per clarified protester standing requirements. 
  • Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Washington Met. Transit Auth., 16 F.4th 294 (D.C. Cir. 2021)—Served as lead counsel in successful defenses, first in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and then on appeal to the D.C. Circuit, of a Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority escalator repair contract. 
  • Wisconsin Physician Serv. Ins. Corp. v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 22 (2020)—Served as lead counsel in the successful defense of a bid protest challenging a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services award of contract for Medicare Administrative Contractor services. 
  • American Small Business League v. U.S. Department of Defense, 411 F. Supp.3d 824 (N.D. Cal. 2019)—Served as lead counsel in the successful defense of Department of Defense invocation of FOIA Exemption 4 to prevent disclosure of contractor documents in response to a FOIA request. The case represented one of the first applications of Exemption 4 following the Supreme Court’s decision clarifying scope of exemption in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019).

Anuj's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.03.25

COFC Holds That Federal PLA Mandate Is Unlawful; Reinterprets Blue and Gold Waiver Rule

In MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) held that the provisions of FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 (collectively, the “PLA mandate”), which required the use of project labor agreements (“PLAs”) on large-scale federal construction projects valued above or at a certain threshold, violated the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). As we previously reported here, former-President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 in February 2022, instructing federal agencies to require construction contractors and subcontractors on projects valued at $35 million or more to “agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to” a PLA. A few months later, the FAR Council promulgated a final rule implementing the executive order in FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34. ...

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.03.25

COFC Holds That Federal PLA Mandate Is Unlawful; Reinterprets Blue and Gold Waiver Rule

Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.27.25

State Department Pauses Almost All Foreign Assistance Funding

Client Alert | 5 min read | 01.21.25

FAR Council Proposes Substantial Changes to OCI Regulations

Client Alert | 22 min read | 01.07.25

The FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act: Key Provisions Government Contractors Should Know
|

View All Insights

Practices

Anuj's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.03.25

COFC Holds That Federal PLA Mandate Is Unlawful; Reinterprets Blue and Gold Waiver Rule

In MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) held that the provisions of FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 (collectively, the “PLA mandate”), which required the use of project labor agreements (“PLAs”) on large-scale federal construction projects valued above or at a certain threshold, violated the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). As we previously reported here, former-President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 in February 2022, instructing federal agencies to require construction contractors and subcontractors on projects valued at $35 million or more to “agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to” a PLA. A few months later, the FAR Council promulgated a final rule implementing the executive order in FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34. ...

View All Insights