Inadequate Justification for Restrictive Requirements Leads to Injunction
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.10.11
After having been thrown out of GAO for purportedly not being an interested party to challenge Interior’s restriction of its procurement of a department-wide messaging and cloud computing system to Microsoft resellers on the GSA schedule, Google found a more sympathetic ear, and standing to complain, in the CFC. In Google, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 4, 2011), the court found that Interior had failed to take several of the procedural steps required by CICA and the FAR to justify the restrictive specification of Microsoft products, enjoined the procurement, and remanded the matter to the agency for it to follow the correct steps of the process.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.23.26
Bipartisan Coalition of State AGs Backs Federal PBM Transparency Rule
In mid-April, a bipartisan coalition of 45 State Attorneys General (AG) submitted a formal letter to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) expressing their collective support for a proposed rule (Improving Transparency into Pharmacy Benefit Manager Fee Disclosure, or RIN 1210-AB37), which would — if enacted — impose new disclosure obligations on pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.23.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.26
Crowell Tracker of Court Rulings on Legal Privilege and Artificial Intelligence Tools
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.23.26
Two Lawsuits in One: The Growing Risk of Pairing Biometric Tech With Wage-and-Hour Violations
