Clean Energy Award Polluted
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.13
In Nexant, Inc (Jan. 30, 2013), GAO sustained the protest of Nexant, Inc., represented by Crowell & Moring, to the award of a clean energy consulting contract by USAID, finding that USAID engaged in misleading discussions, based its evaluation on a flawed methodology that led to numerous unreasonable evaluation conclusions, and did not reasonably explain its basis for choosing the awardee's higher cost proposal. While GAO ultimately declined to rule on the issue of what weight it should afford to a source selection decision document (SSDD) drafted after both contract award and the filing of a protest, it did note that there is "a reasonable concern" whether such an after-the-fact SSDD can accurately represent the fair and considered judgment of the agency.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
