Jump to content
  • entries
    69
  • comments
    0
  • views
    1,057

Entries in this blog

Bid Protest Spotlight: Conflict, Latent Ambiguity, Cost Realism

This month’s Bid Protest Roundup highlights a trio of U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) decisions. The first decision, Deloitte Consulting, highlights the risk of severing a teaming partner after quote submission. The second, Kauffman and Associates, Inc., illustrates how a latent ambiguity in the solicitation can reset the competition. The third, Conti Federal Services, emphasizes that an agency’s upward cost adjustment must remain reasonable.View the full article

Notable Provisions of the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act

On December 22, 2023, President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 into law after bipartisan congressional majorities approved the bill earlier in the month. The annual bill authorizes appropriations and sets policy for the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and generally reflects the priorities of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.View the full article

October 2023 Bid Protest Roundup: Instructions, Jurisdiction, Scrutiny

This month, we feature three bid protest decisions—two from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and one from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”). Though each of these decisions focuses on a different fundamental point of procurement law, all share a common theme: they pertain to agency awards of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (“IDIQ”) contract vehicles or task orders thereunder. View the full article

Morrison Foerster LLP

Morrison Foerster LLP

National Security and Government Contractor Implications of Biden AI Executive Order

The Biden administration issued a widely anticipated executive order on artificial intelligence (“AI”) earlier this week. The Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (the “EO”) addresses a multitude of issues reflecting an emerging national policy on AI. This article focuses on those aspects of the EO most directly related to national security and federal procurement.View the full article

Morrison Foerster LLP

Morrison Foerster LLP

Merge, Acquire . . . Voluntarily Self-Disclose?

Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco announced an important extension of DOJ’s voluntary self-disclosure policy aimed specifically at incentivizing companies engaged in mergers and acquisitions “to timely disclose misconduct uncovered during the M&A process.” View the full article

Morrison Foerster LLP

Morrison Foerster LLP

September 2023 Bid Protest Roundup: Limits to Agency Discretion in Challenge to NAICS Code Assignments, Confines of the Close-at-Hand Principle

This month’s Bid Protest Roundup focuses on a recent U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision involving the limitations of the government’s deference defense and a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)  that involved the proper application and discretionary nature of the so-called close-at-hand principle.View the full article

Morrison Foerster LLP

Morrison Foerster LLP

Definitive Guidance on Facility Security Clearances for Small Business Joint Ventures

The Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Information Security Oversight Office (ISSO) have issued a Joint Notice to clarify how Facility Security Clearances (FCLs) (also called Entity Eligibility Determinations, or EEDs) work for joint ventures. As we have discussed before, the SBA regulations for a few years now have specified that procuring agencies may not require joint ventures to possess an FCL as a condition of the award of a small business set-aside contract.View the full article

Morrison Foerster LLP

Morrison Foerster LLP

Contracting In The Fog of War: Recovering Costs Related to COVID-19

Like the COVID-19 virus, COVID-related contract claims have not gone away.  In “Contracting in the Fog of War: Recovering Costs Caused by an Epidemic,” we reported on Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Department of State, CBCA No. 5683, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37589 (April 22, 2020), in which the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) determined a contractor’s additional costs incurred due to the Ebola outbreak did not entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment. View the full article

Morrison Foerster LLP

Morrison Foerster LLP

Missing SCA Clause Did Not Excuse Noncompliance or Allow for Full Equitable Adjustment

In Innovative Technologies, Inc., ASBCA No. 6186, 62185, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or the “Board”) held that, despite the federal government’s failure to include or incorporate the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (“SCA”) FAR Clause 52.222-41 (the “SCA Clause”) in the contract, the contractor was required to comply with the SCA and not entitled to an equitable adjustment for all costs it incurred from a $1.5 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Labor (“D

Morrison Foerster LLP

Morrison Foerster LLP

×
×
  • Create New...