The Sun Has Not Set On Protests Of Civilian Agency Task Orders
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.14.11
In Technatomy Corp. (June 14, 2011), GAO ruled that the sunset provision contained in the 2008 amendments to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act ("FASA") for GAO's civilian task order protest jurisdiction applied not only to the provisions granting GAO exclusive jurisdiction over protests of task order awards in excess of $10 million, but to the entirety of subsection 41 U.S.C.§ 253j(e), and, therefore, GAO's jurisdiction over protests of task or delivery orders essentially reverted to the jurisdiction that previously existed under CICA (pre-FASA), under which there is no jurisdictional distinction between protests of awards of contracts and of task orders. The net effect is that any task order award of any value pursuant to a civilian agency contract is subject to the protest jurisdiction of GAO and possibly of the Court of Federal Claims, to the extent that court agrees with GAO's ruling.
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
