1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Industrial Base Sole-Source Award Deficient

Industrial Base Sole-Source Award Deficient

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.04.14

In Coulson Aviation (USA) Inc.; 10 Tanker Air Carrier, LLC; Minden Air Corp. (Mar. 31, 2014), GAO agreed with protesters, including one represented by Crowell & Moring, that the U.S. Forest Service had unlawfully awarded a sole-source contract with a potential value of nearly $500 million. After extensive briefing and a two-day hearing, GAO found that the sole-source award was invalid because the true basis for award had been honoring a settlement agreement promise to award the contract and the Justification & Approval supporting the award both (i) improperly relied on the factually inapplicable "industrial base" exception to the full and open competition requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act and (ii) failed to identify the critical facts relevant to the award.


Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....