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 | 1 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.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26
