Often in the government contract law world, following a recommendation by the United States Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) in a winning bid protest is wise and bulletproof. However, in Turner Construction Co. v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14370 (2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Army’s decision to follow such a GAO recommendation was unreasonable.  The Court sustained an injunction forcing the Army to actually choose the contractor

When the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recommends that a government agency take “corrective action” in procurement by making changes to its selection criteria or process, the Court of Federal Claims will routinely adjudicate challenges to the proposed corrective action.  But, what if the agency takes corrective action in response to a GAO attorney’s informal advice that doing so was necessary and not in response to a formal GAO decision? The Court of Federal Claims, in

The Department of Defense Unites States Special Operations Command (“USSOCOM”) awarded their Information Technology Service Management (“ITSM”) contract to Jacobs Technology, Inc. instead of IBM.  IBM complained that Jacobs had an “organizational conflict of interest” since it had been the incumbent contractor for USSOCOM’s service desk and had non-public information related to the agency’s service desk user requirements that provided it an improper competitive advantage.  The case is Jacobs Technology, Inc. v. United States and IBM

While it is well-settled that the law in Virginia disfavors covenants not to compete (commonly referred to as “non-competes”), this policy does not apply to non-competes which were entered into and negotiated by sophisticated parties.  The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia refused to void two employees’ non-compete agreements because in the law’s view, sophisticated parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. In the case of Capital One Fin. Corp.

In standard employment agreements and related staffing contracts, companies often include both a non-compete clause and an arbitration clause.  They do so to protect against unfair employee competition, and against the costs and uncertainty of employees’ legal claims.  While arbitration clauses may assist in reducing costs from employment law claims, they are typically ill-suited for resolution of a non-compete dispute.  As a best practice, such arbitration clauses should exclude non-compete disputes from the scope of