GAO Rejects Rubber-Stamp LPTA Technical Evaluation
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.14.15
In a low-price-technically-acceptable procurement for IDIQ contracts for flame-resistant Army combat shirts, GAO sustained a challenge to the technical evaluation because the agency did not critically evaluate whether any of the three awardees' proposals actually met a particular solicitation requirement. GAO rejected the agency's nondescript finding that each awardee's proposal was "acceptable," and instead concluded that none of the awardees had provided a meaningful narrative addressing the requirement and that one, in fact, had included test data in its proposal showing that it did not meet the 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Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the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
