CFC Blasts AF and DOJ for Vexatious Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.31.16
In the latest decision in SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 19, 2016), the CFC found SUFI (represented by C&M) to be entitled to litigation attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, under both the “bad faith, vexatious litigation” exception to the American Rule and the “small business” provisions, for the entire duration of the proceedings at the ASBCA, the CFC, and the Federal Circuit, which have lasted at this point over a dozen years. The CFC awarded fees at counsel’s full, current rates to account for vexatious conduct and delay and also found that the “special factors” of exceptional results and uniquely experienced counsel supported that same award.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
