CFC Has "Pre-Procurement" Protest Jurisdiction
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.29.08
In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit this week held in Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Aug. 28, 2008) that the Court of Federal Claims' bid protest jurisdiction over an alleged statutory or regulatory violation "in connection with a …proposed procurement" covered a challenge to an agency's decision to acquire software through an existing task order contract rather than by conducting a separate procurement for the software. GAO and the CFC had both dismissed the protest, but the Federal Circuit held that (a) a proposed procurement begins with the agency's process for determining its needs, and (b) that process had occurred here through an agency RFI market research effort, with the consequence that the subsequent agency decision to satisfy its needs through the existing task order contract was subject to the CFC protest jurisdiction over "proposed procurements."
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
