Army Can't Bypass Competition Without Court Scrutiny
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.18.04
Noting the Army "may not disregard" legal constraints "under the auspices of an unusual and compelling urgency," the Court of Federal Claims, in Filtration Development Co. v. U.S. (Feb. 3, 2004), held that a court can review an Army decision to bypass competitive procedures on the basis of "urgent and compelling circumstances" even when those circumstances – rapid deterioration of helicopters in Iraq – involve military needs of mobilized forces. The court rejected the argument that it had no standards against which to review the Army decision, stating that it could review the Army's written justification for rationality and the "fact that the ultimate destination . . . is Iraq does not alter this proposition."
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
