Industrial Base Sole-Source Award Deficient
Client Alert | less than 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.
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



