CORRECTION: Congress to Vote on Radically Altering CFC's Bid Protest Timeliness Rules
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.15.12
Yesterday we erroneously reported that a provision to amend the Tucker Act with respect to the timeliness rules of Court of Federal Claims protests had been included in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act reported by the House Armed Services Committee. We have learned that this proposed legislation from the Department of Defense was ultimately not included in the bill, as reported, perhaps because such amendments to Title 28 of the U.S. Code are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but we will continue to track this proposed legislation.
May.14.2012
REVISED -- see above. Late last week, the House Armed Services Committee passed a committee mark version of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that includes a provision that would amend the Tucker Act to adopt all of the GAO's timeliness rules for bid protests. If the bill is signed into law in its current form, protesters would no longer be able to file Court of Federal Claims bid protests after an unsuccessful effort at the GAO, but would be required to select one forum or the other.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
