Steven Eichorn provides counsel for both public and private sector clients at Ifrah Law. Clients appreciate his thorough understanding of the facts and the law and his honest assessment of the issues, and he serves as a strong advocate for their positions. Steven has excelled at resolving legal challenges, and often surpasses the expectations of his clients.

Steven has experience in the investigative domain of the government, as well as in the litigation practices of large and small law firms. His experience includes drafting the operating documents for a joint venture that successfully bid on a government contract worth over $10 billion, achieving a decision of no debarment period for a government contractor that was subject to a suspension and debarment proceeding, and prevailing on behalf of a government contractor in a size protest before the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Among various commercial litigation matters, Steven was actively involved in the litigation of a qui tam case in the healthcare industry, and provided counsel in a contract-related dispute of over $20 million. He has also co-authored an article on Internet bans as a condition of probation that was published in the National Law Journal.

Steven has assisted many individuals in a variety of pro bono matters, including providing legal advice in landlord-tenant disputes and uncontested divorce proceedings. Steven has active board memberships in a number of community organizations.

Professional + Community

• Bancroft Village Homeowner’s Association, Treasurer
• ABA, Member
• NYSBA, Member
• DC Bar, Member

“FATCA: the end of hiding US accounts in foreign banks?,” E-Finance & Payments Law & Policy	March 2013
“Commentary: Banned from the Internet,” The National Law Journal	October 13, 2010

Successfully Defending a Government Contractor Against a Terminated Employee’s Health Care Claim

Ifrah Law successfully defended a government contractor against claims by a terminated company employee. Our client, a health care professional supplier, faced allegations that it failed to offer the former employee COBRA insurance coverage, as required under the COBRA statute.

Ifrah Law conducted a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in January 2012. The judge sustained minimal claims and awarded the plaintiff a mere $500.

(Middlebrooks v. Godwin Corporation, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, No. 1:10CV1306)

 

Prevailing in a Government Contractor’s Debarment Proceeding

How long should your past haunt you? A client of Ifrah Law faced that question when it was confronted with a potentially crippling debarment from a federal agency.

The government contractor had participated in a conspiracy to bribe a public official for a contract award. However, it was the first to cooperate in the resulting federal investigation, which led to a successful conviction. Fast forward four years, and the Department of Defense moved to debar our client. The DoD had already placed the contractor on the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) but wanted to go a step further. Debarment would have been devastating for our client’s business, resulting in an almost complete loss of revenue.

Presenting the client’s strong performance record since the bribery incident (we even got the prosecutor from the contract bribery case to write a letter to the court on our client’s behalf), Ifrah Lawyers successfully represented the contractor in the debarment proceeding. We obtained a decision of no debarment period at all.

 

Protesting Procurement Irregularities to Keep a Client in Competition

A client contractor participated in a procurement competition over a multi-award contract with the Department of the Army that was valued at almost half a billion dollars. After submitting a proposal, our client (along with other bidders) was excluded from the competition because of a deficiency in a proposed labor rate. The other excluded parties protested to the Government Accountability Office, and the Army permitted five of the protesting parties to rejoin the bidding process.

With just a week left before the final proposal revisions were due, our client asked us for help. We filed a U.S. Court of Federal Claims protest asking to reverse the exclusion based on irregularities in the procurement process. We also asked for an injunction to prevent the bidding process from ending.

As a result of our filing and subsequent negotiations with the Department of Justice, our client was permitted to rejoin the bidding and to submit a revised bid.

(Platinum Business Corporation, et al. v. United States, 1:12-cv-00001, Court of Federal Claims, Bid Protest (2012))