"Piggy-Backer" Falls at GAO
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.01.05
In VSE Corp; Johnson Controls World Svs. Inc. (May 23, 2005 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2904523.pdf), GAO held that Johnson Controls could not circumvent GAO's strict timeliness rules by "piggy-backing" an untimely protest of a sole source award by the Department of Homeland Security onto a timely protest previously filed by VSE. Nonetheless, GAO found the sole source bridge construction contract was improper because DHS failed to prepare a required written justification and approval, and it expressly held that Johnson Controls, as well as VSE, must be given an opportunity to demonstrate an ability to satisfy DHS' requirement.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
