Attribution of Affiliate Past Performance Improper Without Proposed Meaningful Involvement in Performance
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.11.17
In a recent protest decision, Language Select LLP, dba United Language Group (released Dec. 1, 2017), GAO sustained a protest of a Federal Supply Schedule blanket purchase agreement by the Social Security Administration for worldwide telephone interpreter services because the agency improperly credited the awardee with the experience and past performance of a subsidiary division based on identification of the division on the awardee’s stationary and in its FSS contract, even though the awardee’s proposal made no mention of the division’s resources nor any meaningful involvement in the awardee’s performance under the BPA, holding that common management is insufficient to support awarding past performance credit for an affiliate. GAO also sustained on the bases that the agency held unequal discussions with the awardee and the agency failed to provide (and document) a rational basis for discounting the significance of the awardee’s recent termination for cause on a similar contract.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
