Agency's Corrective Action Based Upon GAO Recommendation Reasonable
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.06.09
In ASRC Research & Tech. Solutions, LLC (Aug. 21, 2008), GAO determined that NASA conducted flawed technical and past performance evaluations and recommended a limited re-evaluation that ultimately led to a contract award to the protester (represented by C&M). The awardee in the first competition fought to turn the tables on ARTS in a subsequent protest before the CFC, but ARTS successfully defended the award in SP Systems, Inc. v. United States (Feb. 11, 2009), in which the Court found that, although NASA could have taken other corrective actions, NASA's decision to follow GAO's recommendation strictly was reasonable.
Contacts
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
