Private Party MEO Teammate Allowed Intervention To Protect Proprietary Information
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.14.06
In the protest of a contract award to the Government's Most Efficient Organization (MEO) in an A-76 public/private procurement, the COFC granted MEO private team member Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.'s motion to intervene as a matter of right for the limited purpose of protecting its trade secrets and proprietary data (Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. United States). The MEO did not have legal representation separate from the awarding agency, and the COFC concluded that Lockheed's interests were not adequately represented by agency counsel in the context of an A-76 procurement in which agency counsel must "wear multiple hats at the same time" and where agency counsel admitted that the "most comfortable" hat is representing the Source Selection Authority.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
