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 | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
