Unduly Restrictive Specification Requires Redo
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.24.15
In Smith and Nephew Inc. (Jan. 2, 2015), publicly released this week, GAO sustained a pre-award solicitation protest alleging that the VA had unduly restricted competition with an unnecessary specification requirement. GAO concluded that the "minimum fluid absorption rate" for medical bandages demanded by the VA was not based on any demonstrable agency need, was predicated on one repudiated test study by a single contractor, and could not be met by any commercially available product in the marketplace.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
