Federal Circuit Extends 'Good Faith' Shield of Agencies
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.12.13
In Croman Corp. v. U.S. (July 31, 2013), the Federal Circuit upheld the reasonableness of an agency's corrective action after expanding the protestor's argument into a "bad faith" allegation. When the protestor complained that the cancellation of several CLINs was without a rational basis and put forward evidence that indicated the agency's rationale was pretextual, instead of requiring the agency to put forward proof to support its stated rationale, the court relabeled the challenge as a "bad faith" allegation, which it held the protestor had not shown by clear and convincing evidence.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
