Compounding The Problem
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.24.10
On September 22, 2010, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and Defense Acquisition Regulations Council issued a proposed rule that would amend the FAR to require compound, rather than simple, interest to be used in calculating damages for violations of the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA). The proposal follows the problematic analysis in Gates v. Raytheon, 584 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which held that, because the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) statute requires interest on cost impacts for CAS violations to be calculated at the rate established under 26 U.S.C. § 6621, the same rate referenced in the TINA statute, the interest must be compounded in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6622, even though the CAS statute does not refer to or incorporate § 6622 by reference.
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
