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 | 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
