"Piggy-Backer" Falls at GAO
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.01.05
In VSE Corp; Johnson Controls World Svs. Inc. (May 23, 2005 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2904523.pdf), GAO held that Johnson Controls could not circumvent GAO's strict timeliness rules by "piggy-backing" an untimely protest of a sole source award by the Department of Homeland Security onto a timely protest previously filed by VSE. Nonetheless, GAO found the sole source bridge construction contract was improper because DHS failed to prepare a required written justification and approval, and it expressly held that Johnson Controls, as well as VSE, must be given an opportunity to demonstrate an ability to satisfy DHS' requirement.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 05.28.26
Texas Targets Big Tech With Wave of Suits and Investigations, Part of Nationwide Trend
Client Alert | 7 min read | 05.27.26
Colorado Hits Reset on AI Regulation: SB 26-189 Repeals and Reenacts the Colorado AI Act
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.26
Don’t Get Left in the Doghouse: The Federal Circuit’s Global K9 Case and the Duty to Intervene

