$3.8M Jury Verdict in Government Contract Bid Interference Case

The Challenge:
A Failed Bid Protest and a Contract Lost to Misrepresentation

Heard Construction was a HUBZone contractor based in South Norfolk, competing for a federal project to replace a boat ramp on Pier 34 at Little Creek Naval Base.

The procurement used sealed bidding, where price controlled the award. That made the HUBZone pricing preference decisive. If the low bidder was properly classified as “large,” Heard would receive a 10% pricing preference and win the contract.

Waterfront Marine represented that it was “small.” Based on that representation, Heard lost the contract.

Heard filed a bid protest, but Waterfront doubled down. The SBA initially accepted Waterfront’s position, and Heard lost the protest. Although Heard later prevailed on appeal and proved Waterfront was not “small” at the time of the bid, the victory came too late—the Pier 34 work had already been completed.

The only remaining path was to pursue accountability in court.

The Strategy:
Turning a Failed Bid Protest Into a Tortious Interference Case

Our trial strategy focused on conduct: what Waterfront knew, what it failed to disclose, and how those choices cost Heard the contract.

The defendant’s CEO was called as the first witness. That decision set the tone for the entire case. Through cross-examination, he was pinned to the representations made to the SBA and confronted with the acquisition and affiliation facts that had been left out. From the beginning, the jury saw the case as one about concealment, not paperwork.

That framing mattered. The failed bid protest was not the end of the story—it became part of the proof. Heard initially lost with the SBA protest because Waterfront’s representations carried the day. Once the full facts emerged, the case shifted from bid protest procedure to tortious interference in Chesapeake Circuit Court.

The Courtroom Moment:
“Small” Was the Whole Case

At trial, the core issue became clear: if Waterfront had been properly classified as “large,” who should have received the contract?

Expert testimony from a former senior SBA official with decades of HUBZone experience answered that question directly. If Waterfront had disclosed the required information and been treated as large, Heard should have won.

That testimony cut through the procurement complexity. The jury did not need to master every SBA regulation. It needed to understand one practical point: the wrong size status changed the outcome.

The Damages Story:
Past Performance Drives Future Work

For government contractors, winning one project is not just revenue. It is positioning.

Heard was trying to build past performance in federal marine construction. The Pier 34 project was a gateway opportunity—a price-only sealed bid that could have given Heard the federal experience needed to compete for future work.

The damages case connected that lost contract to the broader business impact:

• Direct lost profits from the Pier 34 project
• Lost self-performance opportunities
• Lost future contracting opportunities tied to past performance
• Costs incurred trying to correct the bid outcome

The point was straightforward: Heard did not just lose one job. It lost the past performance that would have helped it win the next ones.

The Result:
One of Virginia’s Largest Jury Verdicts of 2017

After a four-day jury trial in Chesapeake Circuit Court, the jury found the defendants liable for tortious interference and awarded Heard Construction $3.8 million.

Virginia Lawyers Weekly reported the result as the second largest jury verdict in Virginia in 2017.

The case did not end there. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia and lost. They then sought review by the United States Supreme Court and lost again.

The verdict held.