Agency's Preclusionary (And Erroneous) "Revolving Door" Advice Provides Pre-Award Bid Protest Standing
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.09.08
In The CNA Corporation v. United States (April 30, 2008)
the COFC granted standing to a potential bidder arguing that it would be effectively disqualified from a procurement because a key employee, a former NIH scientist, had received an agency ethics opinion finding applicable the life-long representational ban under criminal statute 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), thus precluding her from being assigned to the contract. In finding for the protester, the COFC held that (1) the agency's 15-page legal opinion was wrong because it misapplied the definition of "personal and substantial participation" required to trigger the life-long representational ban, and, further, (2) even if the agency's ethics opinion had been correct as to a representational ban, the scope of prohibited "representation" under the statute was not as broad as the agency's interpretation and the protester would have been able to use the former NIH employee as its principal investigator were it awarded the contract.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
