In a recent case at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) a protestor successfully challenged the procuring agency’s proposed corrective action terminating the protestor’s contract and re-opening the competition.
In a recent case at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Hodges considered what happens when an on-line electronic reverse auction goes wrong and one of only two bidders is unable to see the other’s later low bid, and thus believed it was the winning bidder, only to later learn of the lower bid.
The SBA Washington Metropolitan Area District Office recently reconsidered and reversed an earlier favorable eligibility determination on behalf of an 8(a) joint venture where newly-obtained information during a size protest indicated that the joint venture did not comply with SBA’s 8(a) joint venture regulations at 13 C.F.R. 124.513.
In a rush to obligate federal dollars before the end of the fiscal year, there have been a rash of solicitations issued using the simplified acquisition procedures brand name, sole or limited source authority. FAR 13.106-1(b).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled on a variety of legal issues in Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States, Nos. 2010-5086, -5087 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2011) involving a Miller Act surety’s claims against the United States. The Federal Circuit’s ruling highlights (i) the need to comply with Contract Disputes Act requirements; (ii) the limited waiver of sovereign immunity under the Tucker Act; and (iii) the perils of suretyship on federal construction projects.
On July 25, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the plaintiffs in a qui tam action brought against The Kane Company (“the Company”) under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) could proceed with their suit, holding they had adequately stated a claim under the FCA and for fraud.
During the procurement under protest in PCCP Constructors, JV; Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation, B-405036(August 4, 2011), a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Chief retired and began employment with the company ultimately selected for the award – CBY. At the time of his retirement, the Chief held the most senior civilian position within the Corps’ Hurricane Program – the program with authority for decisions related to major elements of the hurricane protection program including the permanent pumps project under protest.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ (CFC’s) decision regarding an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). In Turner Construction Co., Inc. v. United States, 2010-5146 (July 14, 2011), Turner had been awarded a construction contract by the Army that was protested based on alleged OCIs arising from merger discussions between Turner’s design partner, EB, and the parent of the Army’s design company for the project, AECOM.
A recent U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) case is a veritable “horror story” of what can happen to a small-business contractor that is not fully ready to perform and that expects – perhaps based on its past experience with agency contracting personnel – that a “friendly” contracting officer (“CO”) will exhibit patience towards the contractor. Sadly, and notwithstanding the court’s conclusion that the Government improperly terminated the contractor’s security-guard contract, the contractor failed to obtain any meaningful relief.