Base And Option Years Unit Pricing Not Releasable Under FOIA
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.29.06
In Canadian Commercial Corp. v. Dept. of Air Force, Judge Bates, despite rejecting the contractor's argument that the disclosure of the base and option year prices would likely cause substantial competitive harm in future procurements, reversed the Air Force's decisions to release that data from its contract for the maintenance and repair of J85 turbojet engines. The court found that the pricing information was involuntarily submitted but that substantial competitive harm would result from the release of all but the labor rates for the over and above work, based solely on the conclusion that the release would harm the contractor by providing its competitors information that they could use to convince the Air Force not to exercise the contract options.
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
