Only Significant OCIs Require Mitigation
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.18.10
On August 5, 2010, the Federal Circuit in PAI Corp. v. U.S. affirmed the lower court's determination that contracting officers have an obligation to mitigate "significant" OCIs, but that the FAR does not require "mitigation of other types of conflicts, such as apparent or potential non-significant conflicts." The Federal Circuit also held that contracting officers have broad discretion to determine whether an OCI is "significant" and that FAR 9.504(a) does not require that contracting officers document their initial identification and evaluation of potential conflicts.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 04.16.24
Navigating the AI Intellectual Property Maze - Key Points From Congressional Hearing
On April 10, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property convened Part III to an ongoing discussion and exploration of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) rights. The session, “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part III - IP Protection for AI-Assisted Inventions and Creative Works,” delved into the nuanced debate over what IP protections should exist for AI-generated or AI-assisted works.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.15.24
Making the EU Courts More Efficient for Trade-Related Decisions
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.15.24
New FAR Part 40 to Address Supply Chain and Information Security Requirements
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.11.24
U.S. Chamber Submits Comments on the FAR Council’s Proposed Rule Regarding Pay Transparency
