Services In Contract Don't Trump "Non-Manufacturer Rule"
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.13.06
In Rotech Healthcare Inc. v. United States (July 24, 2006), a pre-award bid protest of small business set-aside procurements, the Court of Federal Claims held that the Small Business Act's "non-manufacturer rule" requires recipients of small business set-aside contracts to provide products only of domestic small business manufacturers, even if the contract is for both products and services. Finding, inter alia, that the statute is "clear and unambiguous" in its application of the rule to "any" contract for the supply of a product, Judge Bush rejected government pleas for deference to SBA's less-restrictive applications of the rule and permanently enjoined set-aside awards to offerors who failed to certify compliance.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
