1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Attention To Small Business Subcontracting Plan Is No Small Matter

Attention To Small Business Subcontracting Plan Is No Small Matter

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 11.07.05

In Coastal Maritime Stevedoring, LLC (Sept. 22, 2005 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/296627.pdf), GAO found unreasonable the Source Selection Authority's decision to change the awardee's rating from unsatisfactory to satisfactory under the socioeconomic commitment factor when the awardee's small business subcontracting plan failed to address required elements of FAR 19.704 and otherwise neglected to comply with the solicitation's required objective for subcontracting to small businesses 10% of the total contract value. GAO also determined that the agency's price/technical tradeoff was flawed because it failed to take into account advantages in the protester's proposal that translated into quantifiable cost savings to the government.

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....