RFP Must State Whether Or Not Subcontractor Past Performance Will Be Considered
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.16.06
In a shift away from the discretion it has typically afforded agencies in the evaluation of subcontractor past performance, the GAO in Singleton Enterprises, (Oct. 30, 2006 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/ 298576.pdf), held that a latent ambiguity with respect to the evaluation of subcontractor past performance was created where an RFP stated merely that the past performance of the "offeror" would be considered, and that the protester's interpretation that the agency (GSA) would also evaluate subcontractor past performance was reasonable in light of the FAR provision that subcontractor performance "should" be evaluated. GAO held that GSA's categorical refusal to consider subcontractor past performance was improper without further guidance provided in the RFP and recommended that GSA amend its solicitation to clearly advise offerors of what past performance information the agency will consider.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
