DoD Renews Its Request to Limit CFC Bid Protest Jurisdiction Dramatically
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.22.16
In its legislative proposal package sent to Congress on April 12, 2016, the DoD is again seeking to curtail the CFC’s bid protest jurisdiction significantly by importing nearly all of GAO’s rigid timeliness rules into the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), with the stated goals of “reducing the time to decide bid protests by avoiding unnecessarily repetitive protests” and eliminating an “unintended forum shopping practice that has arisen under the existing bid protest system[.]” For a detailed review of the similar DoD legislative proposal in 2012, see this post, where we explain why the proposed change, among other things, (1) will not fully address DoD’s “second bite at the apple” concerns, (2) will deny many prospective protesters a “first bite,” and (3) may have a significant effect on the types and numbers of protests filed in the GAO and the CFC.
Contacts
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
