CFC Gives CICA Its Bite
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.03.08
In declaring invalid the override of a Competition in Contracting Act stay in Nortel Gov't Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 10, 2008), a case litigated by C&M, the Court of Federal Claims rejected the government's "urgent and compelling" basis for the override given that it (1) failed to establish the adverse consequences of maintaining the status quo, (2) did not consider whether reasonable alternatives to the override exist, (3) afforded "unacceptably brief treatment" to the potential costs and risks to the government if GAO recommended sustaining the protest, and (4) did not "consider the impact of its override decision on competition at all." The Court also rejected the claim that the override served the "best interests" of the government, finding that a "strong preference" for a "new" or a "more cost effective" contract is insufficient to justify the override.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.16.26
In a significant decision for government contractors, on April 15, 2026, in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that bid protesters challenging an agency’s override of an automatic stay of contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) need not satisfy the demanding four-factor test traditionally required for preliminary injunctive relief. In so doing, the Federal Circuit clarified that CICA stay override challenges need only demonstrate that the override decision was arbitrary and capricious—nothing more.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.16.26
ROI Tracking as Mens Rea? Novartis Ruling Reframes AKS Pleading Risk
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.15.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
