1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |"Meaningful Consideration" of Procurement's Primary Activity Required in Size Standard Determinations

"Meaningful Consideration" of Procurement's Primary Activity Required in Size Standard Determinations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.16.14

In RLB Contracting, Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 3, 2014), the Court of Federal Claims enjoined the USDA from moving forward with a small business set-aside procurement for a shoreline and marsh restoration project issued under a NAICS code for "Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction," to which both the USDA and SBA found the code’s smaller size standard exception for "contracts which are comprised primarily of dredging and surface clean up" inapplicable. Concluding that the size standard decision by the USDA (which was affirmed by the SBA) was "flawed because the [administrative] record does not show that they gave proper consideration to whether dredging constitutes the primary activity involved," the CFC deemed the size standard determination "irrational."


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.13.26

Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief

A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy. ...

View All Insights