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 | 7 min read | 11.02.26
DOL Finalizes PBM Fee Disclosure Requirements
On October 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued a 350-page final rule requiring providers of pharmacy benefit management services and their affiliated brokers and consultants to disclose fees and compensation received to fiduciaries of covered large, self-insured ERISA group health plans. According to DOL’s accompanying fact sheet, the disclosures will give employers more visibility into the payments PBMs may receive from various sources and help fiduciaries evaluate and monitor arrangements over time.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
