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 | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
