DoD Advances Proposed Rule on Enhanced Debriefings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.24.21
On May 20, 2021, the FAR Council issued a proposed Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rule on post-award debriefings that largely codifies—and in a number of ways bolsters—the existing enhanced post-award debriefing rules established by the Department of Defense’s (DoD) March 22, 2018 Class Deviation on Enhanced Postaward Debriefing Rights. The proposed rule requires that the awarding agency provide an oral or written debriefing, when requested, for all contracts, task orders, and delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million. The rule further augments the DFARS clause on DoD debriefings, requiring (1) debriefings to include a redacted version of the source selection decision document (SSDD) for all awards in excess of $100 million; and (2) the option for a small business or nontraditional defense contractor to request a redacted version of the SSDD for contract awards between $10 million and $100 million. And as with DoD’s Class Deviation, if an offeror submits additional questions in response to the initial debriefing within two business days of being debriefed, the debriefing shall not close until the agency responds to those questions. Under those circumstances, the protester’s clock for filing a protest at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (including the five-day window in which to file and obtain the Competition in Contracting Act’s automatic stay of performance) does not begin to run until such time as the agency provides its response. If no questions are posed, the protest timelines are unchanged.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate




