Tag Archives: COFC

Thank You, COFC Judicial Conference

Posted on by

I recently returned from the 35th Annual Judicial Conference for the Court of Federal Claims. I wanted to send a hearty thanks to all of the organizers of the conference, especially Judge Tapp! It was a great opportunity presenting on the topic of Private Conflicts: How the New Private Sector OCI Rules Could Impact Federal Procurement. I also thoroughly enjoyed the other presentations at the conference.

For those looking for more information on this topic, here are some resources for you:

35th Annual Judicial Conference – U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC

Posted on by

I will be presenting at the 35th Annual Judicial Conference in Washington, D.C., on October 23. This prestigious event gathers legal professionals, judges, and scholars from across the country to discuss the latest developments in the judiciary and legal system.

It’s definitely an honor to be speaking at the 35th Annual Judicial Conference for the Court of Federal Claims. My topic is: Private Conflicts: How the New Private Sector OCI Rules Could Impact Federal Procurement.

Hope to see you there! You can read more about this event and the speakers giving presentations at this link.

Federal Circuit Decision: Slightly Opens Protest Door to Non-Offerors

Posted on by

Lately, we’ve seen a boom in protests being brought to the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) in lieu of protests brought at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). And it appears that the recent decision in Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States, 2023-1970 (June 7, 2024) may have just set the course for even more. But the case here didn’t start with an offeror under a solicitation. Instead, it was brought by a commercial software company, Percipient.AI, Inc. (Percipient), who challenged the government’s acquisition of custom software at the Court of Federal Claims and then landed right in the lap of United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).

Continue reading →

Apparent Conflict: Appearance of Impropriety Enough to Exclude a Contractor from Federal Contract

Posted on by

When a government employee moves from a federal agency to a private contractor, this sort of revolving door can lead to concerns that contractor hiring the ex-agency employee is getting special treatment. To avoid this concern, the ex-agency will sometimes bar the contractor from competing. In a recent case, the Navy did just that and a court had to review if the Navy made a reasonable decision.

Continue reading →

COFC: Lapsed SAM Registration During Proposal Evaluations Makes Offeror Ineligible for Award

Posted on by

It’s a tale as old as time, and I’m not talking about “Beauty and the Beast.” I’m talking about an offeror who failed to comply with the registration requirements in FAR 52.204-7. What’s FAR 52.204-7? It’s the FAR provision that requires, among other things, all offerors to be registered in the System for Award Management, or SAM as it is better known. And, as we have seen many times before, there is no way around this rule. Often, failure to be registered in SAM limits an offeror’s eligibility before award is made, making the offeror ineligible for award. However, this time, it affected the award that had already been made, resulting in the court entering a preliminary injunction against the government continuing with its original award.

Continue reading →

Exception to the Rule: Evaluating Price at IDIQ Versus Order Level Is a Limited Exception

Posted on by

A recent COFC decision yielded some important insights about government contracting. We already wrote about some joint venture aspects of the decision. But the decision also touched on whether GSA’s solicitation violated federal procurement law by excluding price as an evaluation factor at the indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) level for a procurement.

Continue reading →

Third Time’s the Charm: Protest Sustained by COFC Due to Failure to Conduct Discussions and Flawed Price Reasonableness Evaluation

Posted on by

Proving that an agency acted improperly in its source selection process can be a difficult task for any protester. In theory, for a best value tradeoff decision, the agency’s decision and the process to come to that decision seems easy: the agency does a tradeoff between cost and non-cost factors, and that which is most advantageous to the government is awarded. How hard could it be? And the decisions handed down by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) seem to confirm that it isn’t that hard, seeing as many cases challenging a best value decision are denied. This is, in large part, due to the discretion agencies are afforded in their source selection decisions. Whether an agency conducts discussions during the source selection process is one of many procurement factors that is left up to the agency’s discretion. But, every so often, a decision comes along to prove that there are limits to an agency’s discretion, and in this case, the agency’s discretion overstepped its bounds with its price reasonableness decision and the unjustified decision to not perform discussions.

Continue reading →