Competitive Range Of One Gets Close Scrutiny
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.25.08
Reviewing the law that an agency's narrowing the competitive range to one results in close scrutiny, the CFC in L-3 Communications Eotech, Inc. v. U.S. (Sept. 23, 2008, http://www.crowell.com/pdf/L3-Communications_v_US-AimPoint_08-515.pdf) proceeded to set aside such a determination when the agency disqualified the protestor based on a failed functional test that it relaxed for the favored offeror. The court, after seeing a live demonstration of the hardware involved, also found irrational the agency's failure to seek clarifications when the protestor's perceived testing problem could have been corrected relatively easily.
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
