GAO Sides With COFC In Continued Battle Over Hubzone Set-Aside Priority
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.21.10
GAO in DGR Assocs., Inc.(May 14, 2010), relied on "unambiguous" statutory language instead of a contrary 2009 opinion letter from DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel to hold that a procuring agency must first consider whether the conditions for a HUBZone set-aside exist before proceeding with an 8(a) set-aside. With this decision, GAO falls into line with (and cites with approval) the recent Court of Federal Claims decision, Mission Critical Solution v. U.S (Mar. 2, 2010), appeal docketed (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010), to the effect that set-asides to HUBZone contractors are mandatory whenever the criteria in 15 U.S.C. 657a are met.
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
