Auction Concept Still Lives at CFC
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 11.10.10
In The Sheridan Corp. v. U.S. (Nov. 5, 2010), the CFC set aside the agency's corrective action when, in the face of a GAO protest, the agency announced another round of offers and a new evaluation. The court noted that (a) the record contained no justification by the agency for the corrective action, (b) even if the protest assertions made at GAO were well taken they would only require a reevaluation of the existing offers, and (c) the awardee was irreparably harmed by a new round of offers when its winning price had been disclosed to the other offerors.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
