Insights

The Rule of Two is a vital mechanism for ensuring that contracting officers satisfy the federal government’s statutory requirement that 23% of U.S. prime contracts be issued to small businesses. FAR 19.502-2(b) (19.104-1(a) of the RFO) requires that agencies set aside procurements for small businesses when there is a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible small businesses will submit offers at fair market prices.  

When an agency conducts a multiple-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) competition, successful awardees often wonder whether they can protest the agency’s award to other companies at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. For over a decade, the answer has been a murky “maybe” with various Court of Federal Claims decisions divided over the issue. But in a precedential September 16, 2026, decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Island Creek Associates, LLC v. United States resolved this split, holding that IDIQ contract awardees lack standing to challenge the IDIQ awards to fellow competitors.

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.”

September 22, 2025; 12:00pm-1:00pmDevelopments in Caselaw Impacting Small Business Gov Con IssuesSpeakers: Olivia Lynch, Zachary Schroeder, Issac Schabes, Cherie OwenCrowell & Moring will address recent decisions from the Small Business Administration’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, Government Accountability Office, and Court of Federal Claims covering a range of topics including but not limited to: challenges involving size and status based on ostensible subcontractor affiliation; protests of awards to mentor-protégé joint ventures based on questions regarding the mentor-protégé agreement and joint venture corporate governance documents; protests concerning the evaluation of joint venture capabilities and past performance; protests of the evaluation of small business participation plans; and application of the Rule of Two.

The federal government awards billions of dollars in grants annually to fund public service, support non-profits, drive research initiatives and fund programs for colleges and universities.  With the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the “Act”), the Federal Government is poised to launch $1.2 trillion into the economy, providing funding to commercial entities through federal grants over the next 5 years, which will impact the infrastructure of this country for the next generation.  Like government contracts, federal grants have their own myriad of regulatory requirements that each grant recipient must meet and which are flowed down to subrecipients and subcontractors.  

Crowell & Moring’s “All Things Protest” podcast keeps you up to date on major trends in bid protest litigation, key developments in high-profile cases, and best practices in state and federal procurement. In this episode, Crowell attorneys discuss their recent “Feature Comment,” published in The Government Contractor, discussing the recent Court of Federal Claims decision rejecting GAO’s key personnel notification rule.