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 | 2 min read | 07.24.26
GAO Finds That Challenge to Agency’s Failure to Comply With DFARS Requirement Comes Too Late
GAO’s recent dismissal of the protest in Tyonek Technical Innovations, LLC, B-424364, B-424364.2, June 30, 2026, carries an important lesson for government contractors: if you believe solicitation terms conflict with a statute or regulation, you must raise that challenge before proposals are due—not during discussions or afterwards.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
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
