1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Negative Responsibility Determination Overturned

Negative Responsibility Determination Overturned

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.02.10

In Bilfinger Berger AG v. U.S. (Nov. 19, 2010), the CFC found that the Army Corps of Engineers had unreasonably relied on the opinion of an Italian lawyer applying Italian law to disqualify an offeror for when the Corps had failed to describe all the relevant situation to the attorney and issued a preliminary injunction stopping all work under the contract. The case is another example of the little deference that the CFC gives GAO opinions, as the GAO had found in the Corps' favor on the same facts, and Judge Sweeney also joins those on the court who have ruled that the jurisdiction under 1491(a)(1) of the court to consider a breach of the implied-in-fact contract to consider a solicitation fairly and consistently with the solicitation is intact after the addition of bid protest jurisdiction in 1491(b)(1) and the Federal Circuit's decision in Resource Conservation Group earlier this year.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 07.09.26

EU Steel Overcapacity Regulation: New Permanent Measure in Force from 1 July 2026

The EU’s steel safeguard under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 expired on 30 June 2026 and has been replaced by a new permanent instrument — the EU Steel Overcapacity Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2026/1384) (the Regulation”). It imposes tariff-rate quotas and an out-of-quota duty, similarly to the steel safeguard measures that expired. The out-of-quota duty has been raised from 25% to 50% to minimize the risk of trade diversion. The Regulation reduces duty-free imports of 26 categories of steel products into the EU by an average of 47% compared with the quotas under the until recently applicable safeguard measures....