Misleading Discussions Can Be With Awardee
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.19.06
In Advanced Systems Development, Inc. (Sept. 19, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298411.pdf), the GAO held that the agency improperly tipped the tables when it incorrectly advised the future awardee in discussions that one portion of its price violated the solicitation's price target and never disclosed that the excess was caused at least in part by an upward adjustment the agency had made to compensate for an error in another part of the awardee's pricing proposal. In response to this incorrect and incomplete information provided during discussions, the offeror lowered its final price below that of the competition, including the protestor, who prevailed on the theory that the agency's discussions with the awardee were not meaningful.
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
