LAW PRACTICE HISTORICAL RECORD

William J. Spriggs                     bill@spriggslawgroup.com                (434) 993-2802

http://spriggslawgroup.com         http://spriggslawgroup.blogspot.com 

From 2011 to the present, 23 ASBCA and CBCA appeals.  Over the past several years, Mr. Spriggs has successfully handled 23 appeals on behalf of clients before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA).  Most of those cases were settled by agreement of the parties, and four were litigated to a final decision.  Mr. Spriggs also has advised clients on many contract management and dispute resolution matters and served as an expert witness.  He frequently assists clients in preparing requests for equitable adjustment and claims and has experience with ADR at the ASBCA and the CBCA.

During his career, Mr. Spriggs has served as founder and CEO of his own professional services firm, which, under his guidance, he took from $2M in revenues and 15 people to $80M in revenues and 245 people.  He has over 40 years of experience managing his business while serving as a federal procurement lawyer in cases for major corporations and small to medium-sized companies.  As a government contracts attorney, he has handled cases involving claims, protests, disputes, and appeals related to constructive changes, default terminations, convenience terminations, cost allowability and allocability, contract interpretation, data rights protection, and defective pricing.  His services have enabled his clients to recover nearly $1,000,000,000 in profits on government contracts.  The firm he founded and led saved its clients billions in losses.

 

While growing his firm’s business, Mr. Spriggs maintained a profit rate of over 30 percent.  He applied horizontal management techniques with project teams and administrative functions.  The firm had zero claims against it.  Mr. Spriggs resisted mergers and diversified the firm with critical acquisitions.  He maintained a merit-based compensation system and an entrepreneurial approach to marketing and complete client satisfaction.  He found a niche for small to medium-sized firms offering superior performance at a reasonable cost.  His approach was to grow only as the needs of his clients dictated.  He stuck to his core values of quality excellence and successful results.  His motto was growth, one step at a time.

Although he is known for his litigation skills, his emphasis has always been on government contract dispute avoidance and resolution by settlement.  He is a counselor, lecturer, and author.  He is a recognized expert on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its various federal, state, and local agency counterparts.

His representative clients include:  Lockheed Martin, The Boeing Company, General Dynamics, Beech Aircraft, Cessna Aircraft, Koch Industries, General Time Corporation, AshBritt, Inc., Bourns, Inc., Recon Optical, Inc., Target Corporation, Homes by Bell-Hi, Inc., Pettibone Corporation, Pikesville Electric Corporation, Arvol D. Hays Construction Co., Inc., Goodfellow Brothers Construction Co., Inc., Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Cubic Corporation, Magnavox Electronic Systems Co., Inc., UNR Industries, Inc., Research, Analysis & Development, Inc., 3M, Inc., Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., and Spacesaver Systems, Inc.

His cases have involved

·        weapons systems for the Army,

·        disaster recovery services for FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers,

·        GOCO facility services for DOE,

·        aircraft stress sensing systems for the Air Force,

·        bomb fuses for the Navy,

·        water supply to the Army in Iraq,

·        rough terrain trucks for the Army,

·        forklift trucks for the Army,

·        conveyor systems and forklifts for the Postal Service,

·        weapons instrumentation for the Navy,

·        road reconstruction for the Department of Interior,

·        submarines for the Navy,

·        missiles for the Air Force,

·        storage and distribution systems for DCMA,

·        repair and home construction for HUD,

·        aircraft engine parts for DCMA,

·        information systems for the Navy,

·        security systems for the FBI,

·        tug boats for the Coast Guard and

·        office furniture and filing systems for GSA.

Mr. Spriggs has a proven track record of enhancing client profitability, avoiding client losses from cost disallowances and default terminations, and resolving disputes on contract and regulation interpretation issues.

Enhancing Client Profitability

He investigates contract performance against contractual requirements and analyzes whether customer acts or omissions give rise to constructive changes to contract requirements or breaches of implied contract obligations.  As he investigates the facts, he examines various theories to submit requests for equitable adjustment under the changes clause.  He then prepares, offers, and negotiates settlement of the recommendations.  On occasion, he has taken these cases to the next level of the dispute resolution process.  He has over 70 published judicial decisions.  Although he has taken dozens of cases to trial, he has settled most of them by negotiating a settlement.  His recovery success rate exceeds 80%, with over 90% of the cases settled without expensive litigation.  His fee in these cases is recoverable as part of the settlements.

Avoiding Losses from Disallowances and Defaults

In several cases, Mr. Spriggs has assisted contractors and subcontractors in avoiding losses on government contracts and subcontracts by successfully negotiating cost disallowance issues with DCAA and convincing contracting officers to convert terminations from default to convenience.  Based on his knowledge of FAR Part 31 and the DCAA Contract Audit Manual, he has convinced auditors and contracting officers of the allowability of costs, often based on the proper application of allocability principles.  He frequently teams up with the forensic accounting firm McGovern & Greene to add expert accounting reports to his presentation.  He always presents a comprehensive written argument followed by finely tuned negotiation techniques.  His success rate in cost disallowance cases is nearly 100%.  In cases of terminations for default, he presents a comprehensive statement of the facts and all the excuses for failure to perform.  Since every compensable change is an excusable cause of failure to perform, his presentations include requests for an equitable adjustment under the contract's changes clause.  He consists of a pro forma termination for convenience settlement proposal to bolster his argument.  He also negotiates termination for convenience settlement proposals.  Based on his knowledge of FAR Part 31, he has successfully negotiated the allowability of costs, including his fee.

Resolving Disputes on Contract and Regulation Interpretation

Mr. Spriggs routinely advises clients on the meaning of contractual and regulatory language.  Often, these complex documents require the discerning eye of an expert knowledgeable in the legal principles of interpretation.  He has found that most disputes arise because the parties do not understand fully and have vastly differing interpretations of the meaning of language.  Proper contract administration requires both sides to be sure contractual documents are worded.  The best way to resolve a dispute is to prevent it.  So, Mr. Spriggs has concentrated on reviewing documents before and immediately after the award to ensure their meaning is clear to avoid possible disputes arising during performance.  Since differing interpretations of contract language can give rise to compensable changes, he also reviews performance problems to determine if language disputes should be resolved in the context of requests for equitable adjustment.  Regulations also are complex.  Mr. Spriggs advises clients on correctly interpreting rules such as data rights and computer software.  His vast working knowledge of all federal, state, and local acquisition regulations has positioned him to field questions on various subjects such as conflicts of interest, assignments, novations, commercial contracting, sole source procurements, source selection, protests, and small business programs.

Relevant Representative Experience

·        Reversing a termination for default.  The Army terminated a weapons systems manufacturer for default based on alleged failure to pass tests and make progress.  The contractor had made a valiant effort to pass the requisite tests, which had been changed without the contractor’s knowledge or consent.  Mr. Spriggs analyzed the situation and found that the cure notice was based on one type of test, and the show cause and default statements were based on a different test.  Since a default for test failure or to make progress must be preceded by a proper cure notice, he argued the default was improper.  He also assisted the client in preparing a termination for a convenience settlement proposal, and he augmented that proposal with detailed requests for equitable adjustment based on improper testing and impossibility of performance.  He invited his colleagues at McGovern & Greene to assist in cost presentations and with DCAA audits.  Throughout the audit process, he provided answers to questions from the auditors and prepared position papers on the allowability and allocability of costs, including his consultancy costs.  He put together a comprehensive presentation of the facts and legal principles in preparation for negotiating a settlement of the entire case.  He first argued the impropriety of the default based on failure to issue a proper cure notice and excusable causes of failure to perform based on constructive changes.  He also pointed out that the constructive changes based on impossibility would survive even if the default were upheld.  The DCAA auditors had disallowed costs based on the adjustment for loss formula.  Mr. Spriggs pointed out that the procedure does not apply when the government substantially contributes to the loss.  Following the written presentation, he led the negotiation team, which successfully settled the matter with the government, converting the default to convenience and paying a substantial portion of the contractor’s costs (which included his consulting attorney fees) plus profit.

 

·        Careful contract administration yields nearly a billion dollars.  The Corps of Engineers attempted to terminate improperly a Katrina disaster recovery contractor.  Mr. Spriggs devised a plan that successfully thwarted the removal attempts, resulting in the contractor’s recovery of $750,000,000 in revenues.  Then, seeing various constructive changes based on daily questions about contract interpretation, he prepared and submitted requests for equitable adjustment and claims for an additional sum of over $100,000,000.  Most of the demands and claims were based on contract interpretation issues. Still, the allowability of certain costs also came into play, requiring him to work with DCAA to resolve cost allowability and allocability issues.   One of the claims involved the unique theory that the contractor is entitled to relief under the Changes clause, where the government and the contractor were equally ignorant of the underlying facts.  Through that theory, a variation on the superior knowledge doctrine, Mr. Spriggs convinced the Corps of the efficacy of equal ignorance. He settled the claim for 100 cents on the dollar.   Later, Mr. Spriggs successfully prosecuted a protest of the advanced contracting initiative for disaster recovery services.

 

·        Proving DCAA auditors were wrong.  DCAA auditors disallowed certain overhead costs as not allocable to a government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) nuclear facility.  The allocability issue centered around how much off-site overhead would be allowed on the contractor’s employees at the GOCO facility.  Mr. Spriggs analyzed the situation, and based on his experience in the Arctic submarine tanker case (discussed below), he wrote a position paper explaining to the auditors that the allocability regulation was written in the disjunctive and that if the cost is necessary to the operation of the business in support of the statement of work, it is allocable to the government contract.  Moreover, only potential direct benefits must be demonstrated.  There is a benefit, general in scope, derived from costs necessary to the overall operation of the business.  In meetings with DCAA, the auditors finally concluded that the offsite overhead was allocable to the GOCO contract.

 

·        Government misuse of proprietary, confidential data.  The Air Force received a contractor’s unsolicited proposal for aircraft frame stress sensing systems and wrote the contractor saying it would treat the submission as proprietary and confidential.  After that, the government published a synopsis of the concept and asked for expressions of interest from contractors.  Mr. Spriggs argued that the contractor’s offer and the government’s acceptance formed an implied contract not to disclose the data.  Alternatively, he claimed the implied warranty resulted directly from his client’s response to the government’s offer to consider unsolicited proposals.  Detailed written presentations and extensive negotiations followed to no avail.  Mr. Spriggs tried the case and won a motion for summary judgment.

 

·        Stopping a sole source acquisition.   The government intended to award an exclusive source acquisition of bomb fuses.  Mr. Spriggs parsed the language of FAR Part 6 and the relevant precedents and determined adequate justification for the sole source award, which had not been adequately analyzed and documented.  The facts did not justify the prize, and an exception to the competition requirement did not exist.  After trying to convince the government of its error to no avail, he again sought relief in court, and the court agreed, issuing a permanent injunction prohibiting the sole source award and granting the client the opportunity to compete.

 

·        Creating a new theory of recovery.   The Army contracted for water to be supplied to troops in Iraq.  The contract required the government to assist the contractor by providing adequate facilities, space, and accommodations necessary for contractor personnel to perform the contract.  It then terminated the contractor for default and failure to meet the delivery schedule.  The agreement was awarded under FAR Part 12, which deals with commercial item contracting with special terms and conditions for such acquisitions.  Mr. Spriggs, an expert on commercial item contracting, prepared the contractor’s response to the termination for default based on claims that the government breached the express and implied terms of the contract, requiring the government to cooperate and provide the contractor with facilities and accommodations necessary for contract performance.  He pointed out that the principles of common law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) govern the parties' relationship under commercial contracting.  He thus prepared a presentation based on the principles of traditional contract damages, including incidental and consequential damages, reaching far beyond the constructive change equitable adjustment principles involving the FAR Part 31 cost principles.  The new theory arises almost of necessity, given that Mr. Spriggs argued that FAR Part 12 essentially removes the changes clause.  The case is pending.

 

·        Defective government-furnished drawings and specifications.  According to detailed drawings and specifications, the Army contracted for rough terrain forklift trucks.  The contract required significant engineering effort and completion of the first article testing.  The contractor encountered errors in the government-furnished data package and submitted dozens of requests for waivers (RFW) and engineering change proposals (ECP).  The government granted them in part and denied them in detail.  During and after the first article testing, the DCMA product inspectors descended on the contractor’s plant and frequently interfered with the contractor’s performance.  They also delayed and disrupted the contractor’s performance.  After completion of the work, but before final payment on the contract, the contractor sought the advice of Mr. Spriggs, who put together a constructive changes presentation with voluminous attachments and enclosures.  He then followed his time-honored pattern of describing each contract requirement, exactly how the government constructively changed the condition, and how the changes affected the nature and cost of the work.  He then put together a detailed presentation of all the associated costs, including his fee, plus profit.  Each RFW and ECP was discussed in detail, showing the technical engineering cause and the effect on production.  In addition to the detailed factual description, he followed his usual procedure of making sure each constructive change and request for equitable adjustment was supported by legal theory.  The legal principles used were defective government-furnished data, commercial impracticability, and overzealous inspection.  Each RFW and ECP, he argued, was an admission of government liability.  Extensive DCMA and DCAA technical and audit reviews followed.  Mr. Spriggs insisted on receiving all the technical evaluations and the audit report.  Then, with those in hand, he responded point by point to each position taken by the government.  He then set up negotiation sessions.  In the first session, he presented the contractor’s entire case, from beginning to end, including all costs associated with equitable adjustment.  He insisted on giving a chance without interruption and used several key contractor employees in the presentation.  He then offered the government the opportunity to present its case.   At the end of the government’s presentation, he gave the client a rebuttal and asked for a reasonable settlement offer.  After an intermission, settlement offers were exchanged, and the matter was favorably settled   (Mr. Spriggs has written monographs on How to Write a Winning Request for Equitable Adjustment and How to Settle Disputes Effectively, Efficiently and Amicably.)

 

·        Conflicts in performance specifications.  The Army purchases air transportable, heavy-duty forklift trucks with performance, form, fit, and function specifications.  The contractor encountered huge losses on the contract trying to design the car to meet the weight restriction and still be powerful enough to meet the performance requirements.  Mr. Spriggs was brought in.  He analyzed a basic and straightforward conflict or error in the performance specification’s weight and power train requirements.  The design could not meet the weight restriction to meet the power requirements.  So, he prepared a constructive change request based on a primary defect in the government-furnished data.  The presentation and negotiation of the request followed the time-honored pattern.  He began his review with a request for all the government documents.  He used the Freedom of Information Act and face-to-face persuasion.  Mr. Spriggs found internal government documents agreeing with his position and successfully settled the matter using these documents as trump cards.

 

·        Saving a small business from bankruptcy.  The Navy bought weapons guidance systems from a small business.  It then terminated the contract for default, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) converted the default to a termination for convenience.  The company asked Mr. Spriggs to prepare its termination settlement proposal.  He included requests for equitable adjustment in the proposal because the proposal exceeded the original contract price.  This brought into play the termination contracting officer (TCO) and the procurement contracting officer (PCO) with whom Mr. Spriggs had to deal.  The company then went into Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act.  The bankruptcy judge wanted to hear testimony from Mr. Spriggs on the nature of the contractor’s claims and the probability of recovery. Hence, Mr. Spriggs testified at length in New York before a bankruptcy judge as an expert on government contracts.  The issue was whether the Navy claims would settle for enough to fund the Plan of Arrangement to get the client out of bankruptcy.  Mr. Spriggs set about paying the claims and meeting weekly to discuss settlement.  The parties remained far apart.  The Navy refused to recognize any of the constructive changes.  Then Mr. Spriggs violated the rule that the contractor never bid against itself.  He got the Navy counsel aside and told him what number it would take to settle the case.  He said the number required to fund the Plan of Arrangement in bankruptcy was non-negotiable.  Shortly after, the Navy agreed to the number, the plan was funded, and the small business contractor emerged from Chapter 11, a viable company once again.  But not for long.  The company got back into financial trouble and sought Mr. Spriggs's advice again.  This time, Mr. Spriggs petitioned the Contract Adjustment Board 5 times for relief under Public Law 85-804, eventually getting the client the relief it needed.

 

·        The government pays the consultant’s fees.  The Department of Interior (DOI) specified road surface material for road reconstruction in Maui, Hawaii, which was unsuitable for the climate.  Doing right by mistake, the DOI terminated the contractor’s contract for the government's convenience.  Having received a note from Mr. Spriggs reminding him that consultant’s fees are recoverable from the government, the contractor’s president called Mr. Spriggs.  After that, Mr. Spriggs put together the termination for a convenience settlement proposal, including all of the subcontractors’ claims and, of course, his fees and expenses.  A most pleasant negotiation followed with the contracting officer in Denver, after which Mr. Spriggs settled the settlement proposal for 97 cents on the dollar.

 

·        The government pays for the contractor’s futile efforts to get commercial work.  A shipbuilding contractor devoted 100% to government work faced a decline in its backlog and sought to diversify.  A consortium of private companies asked the contractor to design a submarine tanker to transport oil.  The contractor created the vessel and prepared its proposal to the consortium.  It spent a considerable sum in the process and charged its costs to its overhead pool, which was then allocated to all its existing work, which was government work only.  The government objected, and the DCAA auditors disallowed all the costs.  The consortium never accepted the tanker proposal.  The contractor appealed and sought Mr. Spriggs's counsel.  The case turned on the allocability section of FAR Part 31.  Mr. Spriggs argued that the criteria for allocability were stated in the disjunctive and that the costs were beneficial and, therefore, allocable to the government since they were necessary to the overall operation of the contractor’s business.  Necessity was demonstrated in the need to acquire additional work, ultimately bringing the government’s costs down and preserving the contractor’s pool of talented engineers for the future and potential government benefit.  The government continued to object.  After cross-examination of the DCAA auditor at trial, during which Mr. Spriggs demonstrated the auditor had not been reading the regulation correctly, The ASBCA agreed with Mr. Spriggs and held that the costs were, in fact, allocable to the government in that they potentially could have benefitted the government.  The decision became a landmark and has formed the basis for many successful arguments that costs are allocable based on potential benefits.

 

·        Creating the government contractor defense in product liability cases.  When the asbestos litigation crisis peaked, a group of current and former manufacturers of asbestos-containing products sought Mr. Spriggs's advice on involving the government, which had approved the use of asbestos, in resolving the problems its use had created.  Over lunch one day, Mr. Spriggs outlined an approach most of the companies then followed to defend the underlying product liability cases and to seek the government’s contribution and indemnity for losses the companies had incurred.  The idea was a variation of the time-honored defective specification theory.  Mr. Spriggs became known as the father of the government contractor defense theory in product liability cases.  Although the idea took off slowly, the Supreme Court eventually articulated it, and courts have since applied it to all types of government contracts, including services.  The defense is an absolute bar to personal injury or property damage cases brought by third parties against government contractors following specific directions from the government.  Mr. Spriggs was instrumental in asserting this defense in a third-party suit against a government contractor in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  He also believes the theory correctly applies to subcontractors following the direction of prime contractors, who follow the government’s approach.

 

·        Recovering profit on top of consultancy fees.  A contractor encountered delay and changing requirements on a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) contract for mail storage and distribution systems, including pallet racks and conveyor systems.  After losing money on the agreement, the contractor sought Mr. Spriggs' advice.  He went to work on a request for equitable adjustment, which included delay and disruption costs, constructive acceleration of performance, and contract administration costs, including his fees.  After negotiations languished, he took the matter to the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals (PSBCA), where he won a complete victory, including the recovery of his fees plus the contractor’s average profit applied on top of those fees.

 

·        Using the battle of experts to the contractor’s advantage.  The Air Force contracted for missiles under an incentive compensation clause, which provided the contractor an incentive fee if the missile launch proved successful or if the cause of the failure could not be determined.  The launch failed.  Mr. Spriggs recovered the incentive fee for the contractor by showing it was impossible to determine the cause of the failure.  By extending the battle of the experts, he proved his point that no one knew what had happened.

 

·        Advice on countless cost-allowability questions.  Cost allowability questions abound.  The cost principles in FAR Part 31 come into play in all requests for equitable adjustment and terminations for convenience, to say nothing of cost-reimbursement contracts that are still alive and well.  Mr. Spriggs has advised several contractors on various cost allowability issues, including the allowability of bonding costs, compensation for personal services, cost of money, entertainment costs, idle facilities costs, independent research and development, bid and proposal costs, lobbying, professional and consultant benefits costs, selling costs, taxes, termination, and travel costs.  He also has successfully argued the applicability of the rule against retroactive disallowances to defeat all types of cost disallowances.

 

·        The premium placed on proper contract administration.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is contracted to repair damaged and construct new homes.  The contractor encountered delay, disruption, and feeble government contract administration.  Then, the government terminated for default.  Since a proper cure notice was not provided, Mr. Spriggs persuaded the agency to rescind the termination for default and instead consider requests for equitable adjustment based on the government’s failure to administer the contract properly.  The government had failed to keep proper contemporary records of the work performed.  The government also moved far too slowly under the emergency circumstances.  Counseled to do so by Mr. Spriggs, the contractor practiced timely, accurate, and complete record-keeping, thereby prevailing in recovering additional money.  Mr. Spriggs also established the ability to recover differing site condition costs when a limited site inspection is afforded.  He also found the government responsible for delay and disruption costs based on the theory the government implied warranted homeowners would not interfere with the work.

 

·        Sometimes, fundamental fairness prevails.  In a unique contracting situation, the government, acting through the Navy, refused to pay for aircraft engine parts and services because a subcontractor declined to provide cost or pricing data.  Mr. Spriggs argued that the subcontractor’s failure was irrelevant to the contractor’s claim to be paid.  The ASBCA agreed and held that the contractor was entitled to a reasonable value of the work performed. The subcontractor's failure to submit the cost or pricing data did not defeat the contractor’s claim.  It ordered that fair value had to be paid.

 

·        Hidden ambiguities are construed against the government.  The Army argued that the economic price adjustment clause did not apply to a first-article test report. Particular contract language addressed the circumstances under which the clause would be used.  However, the language in the specific clause was unclear.  Mr. Spriggs argued that government contracts are contracts of adhesion whereby the government dictates and writes the terms and conditions.  If language is not ambiguous, the lack of clarity must be construed against the government.  The Board agreed that the contractor could not reasonably have noticed the ambiguity while reviewing the solicitation to prepare its bid.

 

·        Cost disallowances and default terminations are government claims.  Cost allowability and default termination disputes involve claims by the government on which it bears the burden of proof.  In a Trident submarine contract for information systems, Mr. Spriggs demonstrated that a cost disallowance is a government claim, and the contractor does not need to certify its reimbursement claim.  Failure to pay routine vouchers also is not a certification claim.

 

·        No novation is needed for transfers by operation of law. Mr. Spriggs has also handled the recovery of unamortized labor learning costs in terminating a bomb fuse contract. He has established that requiring a novation of a contract agreement is unnecessary if the contract transfer is by operation of law. A merger is a transfer; therefore, it does not violate the Anti-Assignment statutes. Mr. Spriggs has, on numerous occasions, dissuaded the government from requiring a novation agreement when the transfer has taken place by operation of law.

 

·        Enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act time limits. Mr. Spriggs has been involved extensively in controversies involving the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He has used FOIA as a shield to prevent the release of proprietary and confidential business information (reverse FOIA actions) and as a sword to obtain timely information release. In one notable appellate case, he established the precedent that the government must promptly release abstracts of negotiated acquisition results for a client selling acquisition information.

Education:  B.A. in English Literature from Abilene Christian University, President Sigma Tau Delta, Honorary English Society; J.D. from Washburn University School of Law, where he served as an editor of the Washburn Law Journal.

Military: Mr. Spriggs served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving eight years in the reserves and three years on active duty.

Employment history:

·        2011-present, Spriggs Law Group

·        2009-2010, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Washington, D.C.

·        1982-2009, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington, D.C.

·        1972-1982, Sellers, Conner & Cuneo, Washington, D.C.

·        1969-1972, Martin Marietta Corp. (now Lockheed Martin), Denver, Colorado

·        1968-1969, The Boeing Company, Wichita, Kansas

Admissions:  District of Columbia Bar; Court of Federal Claims and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; United States Supreme Court.

Memberships:  DC Bar Association; American Bar Association; National Contract Management Association; Professional Services Council; National Defense Industrial Association; Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce; Prince William Chamber of Commerce.

Publications:  http://spriggslawgroup.BlogSpot.com