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 | 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