1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CAFC Holds Agency Standardization Decision Outside COFC Jurisdiction

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.28.24

UK Government Seeks to Loosen Third Party Litigation Funding Regulation

On 19 March 2024, the Government followed through on a promise from the Ministry of Justice to introduce draft legislation to reverse the effect of  R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28.  The effect of this ruling was discussed in our prior alert and follow on commentary discussing its effect on group competition litigation and initial government reform proposals. Should the bill pass, agreements to provide third party funding to litigation or advocacy services in England will no longer be required to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”) to be enforceable....