Plain Meaning Of Statute Restricts Competition
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.02.06
In Crane & Co. (Jan. 18, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297398.pdf), GAO held that the plain language of a 1916 statute limiting to four years contracts for “distinctive currency paper” precluded the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (“BEP”) from encouraging competition by issuing an RFP for four years of production following a two-year “mobilization” period to allow new entrants to make required investments and amortize that investment over the production term of the contract. Recognizing that BEP was attempting to respond to criticisms of the absence of competition, including GAO reports, GAO held it still had to enforce the plain meaning of the statute, anti-competitive as that interpretation was, and the only remedy was for Congress to amend the statute.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.10.26
In Utech, Inc. v. United States, No. 24-1586 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that in most cases, a pre-award protest must be filed before the proposal submission deadline to avoid the Blue & Gold waiver rule. This decision, while nonprecedential, is in line with U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) precedent, which has long held that pre-award protests must be filed before the proposal submission deadline.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.10.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 07.09.26
EU Steel Overcapacity Regulation: New Permanent Measure in Force from 1 July 2026
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.09.26
Made in the USA? Prove It: FTC Marks America's 250th with Crack Down on Domestic Origin Claims
