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 | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
