Disclosing Fraud by Principals
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.17.16
In ALGESE 2 s.c.a.r.l. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2016), the Court of Federal Claims provided guidance on the terms “principal” and “criminally . . . charged” in the FAR responsibility certification when it enjoined the Navy from proceeding with an award to a company because the Navy should have found it non-responsible upon learning of the corruption and fraud of its parent corporation during a protest of a parallel contract before the GAO. Examining the structure of the company’s family of corporations and conduct, the CFC highlighted that essentially none of the related entities disclosed the many criminal investigations, charges, and convictions in SAM and FAPIIS because the family had “created a new subsidiary in which to dump its criminal liability problems."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
