Government Contracts

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