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 | 7 min read | 06.24.26
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ( National Security Division (NSD) announced that it had issued a declination for Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch) relating to potential violations of the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4819 (ECRA). Specifically, the DOJ declined to criminally prosecute Bosch’s violations of the Export Administration Regulations’ (EAR) Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), which apparently resulted from two Bosch subsidiaries’ export of products and software manufactured with equipment that was the direct product of U.S. software or technology to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its “Entity List” affiliates, including Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd., Hong Kong (collectively, Huawei). The same day, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a parallel civil administrative settlement with Bosch.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.24.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.23.26
EPA Hands Over AI Data Center Regulation to States and Communities to Develop Best Practices
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.22.26
