In a significant ruling for the federal government contracting community, a Virginia state court recently granted preliminary injunctive relief to prevent a subcontractor from being terminated for default. In its ruling, the court found that the subcontractor demonstrated that it would likely succeed on the merits that the prime contractor breached the subcontract and initiated an improper termination. The court’s order in Amentum Services, Inc. v. Valiant Government Services, Inc., No. CL-2025-19335 (Va. Cir. Jan. 14 2026) underscores the risks surrounding terminations for default and workforce poaching concerns.
The dispute arose under the Department of Defense’s Language Interpretation and Translation Enterprise II (DLITE II) program, a contract supporting U.S. Central Command operations. Under the arrangement, Valiant served as prime contractor and Amentum was a subcontractor. Amentum provided hundreds of linguists embedded with U.S. forces in high-risk environments.
The controversy centered on Valiant’s dissatisfaction with Amentum’s Deputy Project Manager. During performance, Valiant requested the Manager be removed but did not provide specific written complaints or a cure period. In fact, the Government had attested to the Manager’s fitness. Nevertheless, Amentum proposed multiple replacement candidates, several of whom were rejected by Valiant without meaningful explanation. Valiant then issued a termination for default, asserting among other issues that Amentum failed to timely replace the Manager.
For federal contractors, a default termination is no ordinary contract dispute. The court recognized that Amentum had never previously received a default termination and that such a termination must often be disclosed in future proposals. This disclosure obligation can significantly impair competitiveness and damage a contractor’s reputation. The court further found that demobilizing Amentum’s linguist workforce, developed over many years and at significant expense, would result in irreparable harm not readily compensable by money damages.
Critically, the court found a likelihood of success on Amentum’s breach of contract claim. The opinion suggests that Valiant did not follow the subcontract’s termination procedures. The court also found evidence that Valiant’s removal of the Manager was a pretext to terminate Amentum and acquire its linguist workforce.
Applying traditional equitable factors, the court found that Amentum demonstrated irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest. The court therefore enjoined Valiant from terminating the subcontract pending further order and required both parties to continue performance in good faith.
This ruling reinforces several key principles. First, terminations for default can carry profound reputational and competitive consequences that may justify equitable relief. Second, courts will scrutinize whether a prime contractor adhered strictly to contractual notice and cure provisions before invoking default remedies. Third, specialized workforces in national security programs constitute unique assets whose loss may be irreparable.
Prime contractors possess significant leverage, but that leverage is bound by contractual good faith obligations and procedural requirements. At least one court has revealed its willingness to intervene where evidence suggests pretext, workforce appropriation concerns, and failure to follow bargained-for dispute mechanisms.
By preserving the status quo, the court signaled that default remedies must be exercised carefully, transparently, and in strict compliance with contract terms.
Smith Currie Oles provides comprehensive legal services to all parts of the construction industry across the nation. Smith Currie lawyers have decades of demonstrated success representing construction and federal government contracting clients “From the Ground Up,” including procurement matters, contract formation and negotiation, project administration, claims prosecution and, when necessary, in litigation and other forms of dispute resolution.
The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of ConsensusDocs. Readers should not take or refrain from taking any action based on any information without first seeking legal advice.