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 | 7 min read | 06.24.26
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ( National Security Division (NSD) announced that it had issued a declination for Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch) relating to potential violations of the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4819 (ECRA). Specifically, the DOJ declined to criminally prosecute Bosch’s violations of the Export Administration Regulations’ (EAR) Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), which apparently resulted from two Bosch subsidiaries’ export of products and software manufactured with equipment that was the direct product of U.S. software or technology to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its “Entity List” affiliates, including Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd., Hong Kong (collectively, Huawei). The same day, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a parallel civil administrative settlement with Bosch.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.24.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.23.26
EPA Hands Over AI Data Center Regulation to States and Communities to Develop Best Practices
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.22.26
