Agency Failure to Consider Proposal Differences Invalidates Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.06.11
In One Largo Metro LLC (June 20, 2011), GAO sustained three protests to a best value procurement for office space for HHS when GSA evaluated one of the technical subfactors in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation and failed to consider meaningfully the evaluated differences in the proposals. Regarding the latter protest ground, the source selection official, by disregarding the recommendations of the lower-level evaluators without explanation, did not conduct a well documented, meaningful consideration of the identified technical differences between the proposals and instead based her decision on a mechanical comparison of the subfactor ratings assigned by the lower-level evaluators.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
