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 | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
