CFC Finds Unreasonable Deviation from Customary Commercial Practices
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 10.26.11
In U.S. Foodservice, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims, while finding that the Army DLA Troop Support had demonstrated a rational basis for a number of provisions that deviated from standard commercial terms and conditions in the food service industry, nonetheless enjoined the procurement because the solicitation's Most Favored Customer clause, itself a deviation from customary commercial practices, was an "irrational and unreasonable attempt towards pursuing [DLA's] overall goals of increasing transparency and reducing fraud." The court explained that the MFC provision was overbroad and would force offerors to submit and certify a price that would include elements that are "completely untethered from ascertainable or predictable knowledge."
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
