Nothing to Discuss: COFC Denies Protest to Exchanges with Offerors in Massive FirstNet Procurement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.06.17
In a decision released publicly on March 31, 2017, the Court of Federal Claims denied a protest challenging a competitive range determination that left AT&T, represented by C&M, as the last remaining contender to win a 25-year contract to build and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network. The network will consolidate public safety use of the radio spectrum and prioritize first responders in times of crisis, while granting AT&T claim over large amounts of unused spectrum, as well as $6.5 billion for construction costs. The Court held, among other things, that the relatively extensive exchanges between the offerors and the agency before the competitive range determination was made were “communications,” not “discussions,” under the FAR because the agency neither intended to accept, nor permitted, proposal revisions. The Court also held that the government reasonably rejected the protester’s proposal where it coupled unacceptable financial risk with a questionable business model.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
