1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Employee Unions And Elected Representatives Lack Standing For GAO Protests Of Private Sector Awards In A-76 Competitions

Employee Unions And Elected Representatives Lack Standing For GAO Protests Of Private Sector Awards In A-76 Competitions

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.10.04

In Dan Duefrene; Kelley Dull; Brenda Neuerburg; Gabrielle Martin, B-293590.2, .3: B-293883; B-293887: B-293908 (April 19, 2004), the GAO ruled definitively that union officials and other elected representatives of government employees who lose to a private sector offeror in competitions conducted under Revised OMB Circular A-76 (May 29, 2003) do not have standing under the Competition In Contracting Act (CICA) to protest at the GAO. Stating that its jurisdiction is constrained by CICA's definition of an "interested party," which limits protest rights to actual offerors eligible to be awarded a "contract" -- and despite the Revised Circular's attempt to implement the recommendation of the Commercial Activities Panel and recast the government side of an A-76 competition in terms intended to confer standing for government employee representatives -- GAO reasoned that the government's tender offer, even if successful, would not result in the award of a "contract" under CICA and, hence, employee representatives of the government could not be interested parties with standing to protest.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights