Offeror's Flip-Flop On Berry Amendment Compliance Dooms Award
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.06.06
Sidestepping the question of whether pesticide impregnation in China of U.S. domestic fabric for bed nets actually violated the Berry Amendment, GAO held in MMI-Federal Marketing Service Corp. (Feb. 8, 2006, http://www.gao.
gov/decisions/bidpro/297537.pdf), that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal was unreasonable because it failed to verify the awardee could in fact impregnate the fabric at a domestic facility as required under the agency's interpretation of the Berry Amendment requirements. Although the agency -- knowing that the awardee, on another contract, had insisted that the impregnation could, by license, only occur in China -- looked beyond the awardee's certification and requested additional information concerning where it would occur, the GAO found the additional information was insufficient to confirm that the awardee had made the necessary arrangements to shift the process to a U.S. domestic facility.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action

