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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
