Following GAO Recommendation Doesn't Insulate Agency's Action After Protest
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.18.11
The Federal Circuit in Turner Constr. Co. v. U.S. held that the Army should not have followed the recommendation of a GAO bid protest decision to disqualify an awardee based upon alleged organizational conflicts of interest ("OCIs") because the GAO decision failed to identify "hard facts" supporting the existence of an OCI and, therefore, "lacked a rational basis." Upholding the CFC decision and citing that court's authority to "award any relief that [it] considers proper," the Federal Circuit also let stand an order enjoining reprocurement and reinstating the awardee's contract, which the Army had terminated in response to the GAO decision.
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
