COFC Reverses Another Cica Stay Override
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.10.04
Although the protester’s incumbent contract (and the 6-month extension) had expired, in Keeton Corrections, Inc. v. U.S., (March 17, 2004), the Court of Federal Claims rejected as arbitrary and capricious an override decision that was premised on the purported necessity of using the awarded contract to deliver necessary correctional services to the Bureau of Prisons. The court found that the agency had not explained why sole source purchase orders could not be used to obtain the necessary services pending GAO’s protest decision, and held that such sole source orders (issued either to the protester or the awardee) would be permissible under the circumstances, and would be less harmful to competition than an override of the CICA stay.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
