Non-Offeror Has Standing, and FAR Part 12 Commercial Item Restrictions Apply to GSA Schedule Procurements
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.12.15
In CGI Fed. Inc. v. U.S.(Mar. 10, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that CGI was a "prospective offeror" and therefore had standing to pursue its preaward protest, despite the fact that CGI did not submit a proposal, which was due after CGI filed at GAO but before CGI filed at the CFC. The Federal Circuit also reversed the CFC on the merits, holding that the proscription in FAR part 12 of terms that are inconsistent with customary commercial practice does apply to solicitations for orders under FAR 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedule) contracts.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision
Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
Recent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” Protests
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
