1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Commercial-Item Contractors Take Note: Federal Circuit to Rehear Percipient.ai En-Banc

Commercial-Item Contractors Take Note: Federal Circuit to Rehear Percipient.ai En-Banc

What You Need to Know

  • Key takeaway #1

    In granting rehearing en banc, the Federal Circuit appears to be reconsidering the standing it recognized in its earlier ai decision. A reversal of that June decision could significantly impair commercial item contractors’ ability to challenge make/buy decisions that are nested within task order procurements, making it all but impossible to enforce the commercial-item mandate. 

  • Key takeaway #2

    Given the importance of the Court’s holding to the underlying question regarding FASA’s commercial-preference mandate, commercial-item contractors may consider accepting the Circuit’s invitation to submit amicus briefing.

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.26.24

On November 22, 2024, the Federal Circuit granted the United States’ petition for panel rehearing en banc of its June 2024 decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States (litigation we have extensively discussed here, here, and here).  In its June decision, the Circuit held Percipient had standing to challenge a National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) procurement action—whether NGA had complied with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s (FASA) commercial-item mandate at 10 U.S.C. § 3453—nested within the performance of a previously awarded NGA task order upon which Percipient had not bid.

In granting the government’s petition, the Circuit indicated its intent to revisit the question of Percipient’s standing, instructing the parties to brief a single issue: “Who can be ‘an interested party objecting to . . . any alleged violation or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement’ under [the Court of Federal Claims’ Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction]?”     

The Circuit has invited the views of amicus curiae.  Percipient.ai represents a decision in which those views may be important.  As the Circuit explained in its June decision, a holding that Percipient lacked standing to challenge NGA’s make-or-buy decision under the unique circumstances of that case would “allow agencies to ignore [the commercial item preference] by deferring decisions about commercial products until after the contract award.”  Under those circumstances, absent the standing the Circuit recognized in its June decision, it would be all but impossible to enforce FASA’s commercial-item mandate.   

We would like to thank Cherie J. Owen, Consultant, for her contribution to this alert.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.29.25

President Trump Issues Executive Order Deprioritizing Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination

On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring it the policy of the United States “to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” The order reasons that “disparate impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability.”...