We may be the only law firm in the United States that includes dredging as one of its principal practice areas. Our considerable experience in this little-understood field results from the fact that each of our partners formerly worked for the Corps of Engineers and learned about dredging from the agency that designs and awards almost every federal dredging project. It is safe to say that during the last twenty-five years, we have represented more dredging contractors, both large and small, than any other law firm in this country. We recently obtained a permanent injunction preventing the Corps of Engineers from issuing a solicitation for Multiple Award Task Order Contracts ('MATOC") for maintenance dredging and shore protection projects in the South Atlantic Division. The proposed MATOC program was opposed by the entire dredging industry. (Click here to review a copy of the November 1, 2007 decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims).

In order to successfully represent a dredging contractor, a lawyer has to understand the technical aspects of dredging. He needs to know the difference between a hopper dredge, a hydraulic dredge, and a mechanical dredge, and he must be familiar with dredging terminology. He must understand the production capabilities of various dredges and the technologies that are involved in the dredging process. If your lawyer does not understand terms like "new work dredging," "maintenance dredging," "boring logs," "cutterhead," "fathometer," "multi-beam survey," "condition survey," "lead line," "booster pump," "disposal area," "walking job," "daily report of operations," "bank factor," or any one of the many other commonly used dredging terms, you may not be talking to a lawyer who can competently represent your interests.

We have been involved in many of the leading dredging cases that have been decided by the boards of contract appeals and the courts during the last twenty-two years, but we are most proud of the even greater number of cases that you will never read about - those that we settled without litigation. Our attorneys not only understand dredging issues, they know how to present the data needed to support a request for an equitable adjustment. Our clients have included dredging contractors who have been victimized by differing site conditions when they encountered rock instead of soil, clay instead of soil, stiff clay instead of soft clay, trash and debris where none was shown on the plans and specifications, underruns and overruns in estimated quantities, defective specifications limiting the selection of equipment, defective specifications where blasting was ultimately required by the conditions but not permitted by the specifications, and countless other issues frequently unique to the dredging industry.