OCIs Down Air Force Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.14.09
In L-3 Servs., Inc. (Sept. 3, 2009) the GAO found unreasonable the Air Force's conclusions that the awardee did not have either a "biased ground rules" or "unequal access to information" OCI when the awardee's subcontractor had performed procurement planning services that put it in a position to affect the subsequent competition and that gave the subcontract access to non-public information that potentially conferred an unfair competitive advantage in that subsequent competition. The Air Force had initially gotten it right, determining that the subcontractor was barred from participating in the subsequent procurement, only to reverse that decision, thereby setting the stage for GAO's decision sustaining the protest.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
