CAFC Holds Agency Standardization Decision Outside COFC Jurisdiction
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.31.18
In a January 23 decision, AgustaWestland North America, Inc. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit reversed a COFC decision that had enjoined the U.S. Army from sole source procuring Airbus UH-72A Lakota helicopters to meet the Army’s standardized training helicopter needs. The CAFC first held that the Army’s “Execution Order” standardizing to the UH-72A was not a procurement decision because it did not discuss procuring helicopters and instead assessed existing Army assets, and therefore the COFC lacked jurisdiction. The CAFC then rejected the COFC’s conclusion that the Army’s decision to sole source as a “follow-on contract for . . . production of a major system” was flawed because (1) the COFC abused its discretion in supplementing the administrative record; (2) the procurement qualified as a “follow-on” even absent a preceding contract; (3) the J&A was sufficiently supported; and (4) that the CO signed before legal or competition advocate review was not prima facie arbitrary and capricious.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 08.03.26
On July 20, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act into law, making New Jersey the fourth state to regulate algorithmic rent-setting practices. Three days later, on July 23, 2026, Governor Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act, which targets “surveillance pricing”—the practice of using or collecting personal data about a user and using an algorithm or artificial intelligence to charge different consumers different prices for the same products. Together, these laws represent a significant expansion of New Jersey's consumer protection framework in the algorithmic pricing context.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.31.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.31.26
