Unequal Price Discussions Sink Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.06.06
In Sytronics, Inc. (Dec. 29, 2005, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297346.pdf), GAO held that a discussion question to the awardee labeling the proposed price as “excessive” sent a stronger message than one to the protester labeling its proposed price as “high.” Prejudice occurred because, for its final proposal revision, the awardee reduced its already-lower proposed price by a greater percentage than the protester, which allowed it to prevail in a cost-technical tradeoff despite the protester's superior technical proposal.
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
