Clean Energy Award Polluted
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.13
In Nexant, Inc (Jan. 30, 2013), GAO sustained the protest of Nexant, Inc., represented by Crowell & Moring, to the award of a clean energy consulting contract by USAID, finding that USAID engaged in misleading discussions, based its evaluation on a flawed methodology that led to numerous unreasonable evaluation conclusions, and did not reasonably explain its basis for choosing the awardee's higher cost proposal. While GAO ultimately declined to rule on the issue of what weight it should afford to a source selection decision document (SSDD) drafted after both contract award and the filing of a protest, it did note that there is "a reasonable concern" whether such an after-the-fact SSDD can accurately represent the fair and considered judgment of the agency.
Contacts
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
