Chance to Change Pricing Generally Required After Corrective Action
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.27.11
The GAO in Power Connector, Inc. (Aug. 15, 2011), reiterated that, when an agency changes a solicitation evaluation criteria in a material way as part of corrective action, it must allow offerors in the next round of proposals to alter their price – even when the change has no obvious relationship to pricing – because the offeror may have submitted a more competitive price had it known that its proposal would be less competitive in another evaluation area. In response to agency concerns about the protestor having an unfair advantage in the recompetition as a result of learning of other offerors’ pricing during its debriefing, GAO instructed that the proper remedy was to level the playing field by disclosing all prices to all offerors, rather than to forbid price changes.
For further analysis, click here for related blog post by James Peyster.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.16.26
What United States v. Bankman-Fried Means for Health Care Fraud Defense
On the surface, United States v. Bankman-Fried is a case about the collapse of a cryptocurrency exchange. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s recent opinion — affirming Samuel Bankman-Fried’s conviction on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy — carries important lessons that extend well beyond the world of digital assets.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
