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 | 5 min read | 09.21.26
Congressional Letter Puts Spotlight on Unenforceable Secrecy Demands in Federal Subpoenas
When federal law enforcement agencies issue subpoenas to companies for information about their customers, the subpoenas or cover letters often contain boilerplate nondisclosure language. This language generally directs companies not to notify those customers and implies that there may be legal consequences for doing so. But as two lawmakers recently called out in a formal letter to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), this boilerplate language may not carry the force of law.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.18.26
Mining, Indigenous Consultation Rights, and Investment Treaty Protection: Part 2
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.18.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.18.26
What AI Companies Need to Know About NY AG's Whistleblower Push
