Whether correctly interpreting the National Park Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998, navigating the concession contracting process or determining where the Federal Tort Claims Act comes into play, legal counsel must be well versed in the nuances of the National Park Service (NPS) concession industry. Phillips Lytle meets this critical criteria.
Successful representation of clients on issues involving NPS concessioners is a result of a broad range of expertise. Phillips Lytle’s expertise includes:
- Bid protests
- Concession contract disputes
- Crisis management and strategic communications
- Development of concession contract proposals
- Federal Tort Claims Act litigation
- Government shutdowns and other disruptions to operations
- Intellectual property issues
- NPS regulatory compliance and policy matters
- Transition of NPS concession operations
While client confidentiality is of the utmost importance, we are able to share the following representations that resulted in positive outcomes:
- Phillips Lytle successfully represented a concessioner in defeating the NPS’s motion to immunize itself from liability in Federal Tort Claims Act cases alleging wrongful death and personal injury occurring in a national park. We managed complex discovery, including preservation, collection, review and production of electronic and other documents, along with depositions of NPS personnel, including the park superintendent. Through our motion papers, we persuaded the court that the “discretionary function” exception to the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity did not apply to numerous allegations against the NPS.
- Phillips Lytle represented an NPS concessioner in a pre-award bid protest before the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”). The NPS refused to participate in the action, asserting that the GAO does not have jurisdiction over concession contract protests. We convinced the GAO that it did have jurisdiction to hear protests regarding an NPS concession contract procurement where, in addition to authorizing the provision of concession services, the prospectus requires the concessioner to furnish goods and services of more than minimal value to the government. This is an important precedent reaffirming the GAO’s jurisdiction over NPS concession contract protests.