CFC Has Jurisdiction Over "Nonprocurement" Protests
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.29.10
In Resource Conservation Group, LLC v. United States (Mar. 1, 2010), the Federal Circuit found that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction to adjudicate a protest involving a Navy solicitation to lease its own real property to another party. GAO and CFC had each dismissed the protest, but the Federal Circuit held that, although there was no jurisdiction under the bid protest provision inserted by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act because the Navy's attempt to lease its own property was not a government procurement, the Tucker Act's pre-ADRA, implied-in-fact contract jurisdiction for nonprocurement protests survived because ADRA did not otherwise provide a remedy for such disputes.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.15.26
CMMC Phase II Suspension Requires Reconsideration of Such Requirements in Solicitations
As discussed in more detail here, the U.S. Department of War (DoW) recently issued a memorandum (Memo 26-P-1023, dated July 13, 2026) directing the immediate suspension of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Phase II requirements (Level I and II self assessments are still permitted). Significantly, the memo directs that “all pending and future CMMC implementation milestones across DoW solicitations and contracts are held in abeyance until further notice.” Moreover, the DoW issued a memorandum on implementing these requirements (available here), directing agencies to issue amendments removing CMMC Level 2 and 3 requirements from active solicitations “as soon as practicable.” Contractors should monitor the government’s compliance with this requirement and should be prepared, if needed, to file a bid protest to protect their rights.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.15.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.14.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.13.26
Amici Rally Behind Liberty Global, Urging Tenth Circuit to Rein in Economic Substance Doctrine
