GAO Protest Jurisdiction Covers Concession Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.22.04
In Shields & Dean Concessions, Inc. (Feb. 23, 2004), GAO took jurisdiction over the protest of a concessions contract awarded by the National Parks Service ("NPS"), stating that, because the concession contract at issue involved the delivery of goods and services to the government, as well as certain groundskeeping and construction services, the contract was a "procurement" within the meaning of CICA, and, therefore, was within GAO's bid protest jurisdiction. Notwithstanding its reliance on CICA to assume jurisdiction, GAO noted that, pursuant to statute, for concession contracts NPS is not bound by the provisions of CICA and the FAR that govern the conduct of procurements, and GAO therefore reviewed the award decision to determine whether it was consistent with the specific statute and regulation governing NPS concession contract and the terms of the solicitation and otherwise reasonable, and sustained the protest.
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
