1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Takes Exception to Agency’s Rejection of Bid Under Buy American Act

GAO Takes Exception to Agency’s Rejection of Bid Under Buy American Act

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.13.18

In Addison Construction Company, GAO sustained a protest challenging the Department of Energy’s (DOE) rejection as nonresponsive of a bid that sought an exception to Buy American Act (the Act) requirements without providing certain information called for by FAR 52.225-9 and 52.225-10 (the clauses relevant to the exception request). While GAO acknowledged that the protester failed to provide certain required information, GAO nonetheless held that DOE could not simply reject the bid. Instead, because the protester provided sufficient information for DOE to understand the basis for the request, and because the omission of the information provided the protestor with no competitive advantage, GAO held that DOE was required to investigate whether an exception was appropriate. While the decision appears to flip the obligation that offerors submit well-written complete proposals, the decision is limited to the Act itself and the clauses at issue, which GAO held do not “require[] an agency to reject a bid as nonresponsive” in the face of missing information. As such, protestors should take heed that this case about exceptions to the rule represents the exception, not the rule.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....