Presolicitation Statements Not Dispositive Of Whether Mod Is Beyond Scope
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.28.05
An agency's presolicitation statement that it did not initially intend a contract to include certain work did not bar the agency from later adding that work, according to the Court of Federal Claims in HDM Corp. v. United States (Dec. 14, 2005). Whether a contract was amended beyond its scope depends upon the breadth of the stated objectives of the solicitation, whether bidders were told that work could be added, and the nature of the added work, so early agency statements are not dispositive, the court held in this case successfully litigated by Crowell & Moring.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
