Set-Aside Decision Doesn't Require Responsibility Determination
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.30.14
In Adams & Assocs., Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 27, 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed that, when applying the "Rule of Two" in a small business set-aside determination, the contracting officer needs only a "reasonable expectation" that at least two responsible small businesses would submit offers and is not required to undertake a responsibility determination pursuant to FAR 9.104-1. This establishes a relatively low threshold of market research under the "Rule of Two" and confirms that a contracting officer need not collect information on factors such as capability, capacity, and past performance on small businesses at the acquisition planning phase of a procurement.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
