OCIs Must Be Considered During M&A Activity
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.01.10
In McCarthy/Hunt, JV (Feb. 16, 2010) and B.L. Harbert-Brasfield & Gorrie, JV (Feb. 16, 2010), GAO found that the awardee had both an "unequal access to information" and a "biased ground rules" OCI when a firm, which was negotiating to acquire the awardee's design subcontractor, had performed procurement planning and development services for the procurement at issue, including preparation of design documents, plans, specifications, and cost estimates. GAO presumed prejudicial impact from the OCIs and recommended that the Army Corps of Engineers eliminate the awardee from the competition because (i) the awardee could have had access to helpful information beyond what was disclosed in the solicitation (e.g., the agency's unstated priorities, preferences, and dislikes), and (ii) the competition could have been skewed in favor of the awardee by virtue of the fact that the entity negotiating to acquire the awardee's design subcontractor played a role in preparing the solicitation requirements.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.10.26
D.C. District Court Upholds CMS’s 2020 Organ Procurement Rule
It’s been about a month since the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida upheld the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS) final rule governing organ procurement organizations (OPM). (See our previous Client Alert here.) The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia followed suit. In contrast to the Florida decision, the D.C. decision was brief and to the point. The rule establishes a competitive model for classifying OPOs under the following three tiers.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 11.10.26
EU Simplifies Rules on Defense Procurement and Transfers of Defense-Related Products
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.09.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.09.26
