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 | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
