Awards Reinstated After Faulty 'Corrective Action'
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.11.14
In WHR Group, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 8, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims set aside an agency's "corrective action" terminating three blanket purchase agreements for employee relocation services because that action was not narrowly tailored to address the flaw in the underlying procurement. While the agency cited a laundry list of reasons for why it believed termination and reprocurement was necessary, Judge Block rejected nearly all of them and, as to the one issue that legitimately raised a concern about the prior evaluation, he concluded that a reevaluation would address the problem without a full resolicitation.
Contacts
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
