CFC Gives CICA Its Bite
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.03.08
In declaring invalid the override of a Competition in Contracting Act stay in Nortel Gov't Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 10, 2008), a case litigated by C&M, the Court of Federal Claims rejected the government's "urgent and compelling" basis for the override given that it (1) failed to establish the adverse consequences of maintaining the status quo, (2) did not consider whether reasonable alternatives to the override exist, (3) afforded "unacceptably brief treatment" to the potential costs and risks to the government if GAO recommended sustaining the protest, and (4) did not "consider the impact of its override decision on competition at all." The Court also rejected the claim that the override served the "best interests" of the government, finding that a "strong preference" for a "new" or a "more cost effective" contract is insufficient to justify the override.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms
