Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights provides our in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting. Through Insights, our attorneys offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments and trends that are shaping the industry. We also examine a full array of non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Morrison Foerster’s nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice represents the world’s leading companies in the aerospace and defense, intelligence, cybersecurity, information technology, financial and professional services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and logistics support sectors. We are enlisted to address our clients’ most complex and important legal issues. Our work includes contract and subcontract negotiation and other transactional matters, business and regulatory compliance counseling, internal investigations, bid protests, and a wide array of enforcement and litigation matters. Our clients range from Fortune 50 companies to small and medium-sized companies just entering the public sector. We advise both U.S. and non-U.S. companies involved in municipal, state, federal, and non-U.S. procurement matters.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

GAO Protest Timeline

govcon-gao-protest-timeline-thumb.jpg

Govcon GAO Post Award Protest Timeline Article

Contract Disputes Act Claim Timeline

govcon-contract-disputes-timeline-thumb.jpg

The Bayh-Dole Act

govcon-bayhdole-thumb.jpg

Anatomy of a Protest

govcon-federalclaimsprotest-thumb.jpg

Allowability of Legal Costs

govcon-allowabilityoflegalcosts-thumb.jpg

Procurement Integrity Act

240715-procurement-integrity-act-resized.jpg

Govcon-Resources

Tina is Co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She represents a wide variety of government contractors including information technology, defense, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical companies, with a focus on general contract counseling and compliance, particularly concerning intellectual property, and cybersecurity matters and federal grant funding.Tina counsels contractors on compliance with federal, state and local acquisition and ethics regulations and with the evolving myriad of requirements pertaining to data security and cybersecurity. She has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with mandatory and voluntary disclosures to agencies, and litigation of False Claims Act matters.Tina routinely advises clients concerning:<ul><li>Prime-subcontractor relationships</li><li>Sources of supply and country of origin requirements</li><li>Price reductions and price reporting issues</li><li>Organizational conflicts of interest</li><li>Safeguarding of intellectual property and other proprietary interests</li><li>Licensing and data rights issues</li><li>Handling of classified materials and controlled unclassified information</li><li>Agency suspension and debarment proceedings</li></ul>She also assists clients with due diligence and other activities related to the acquisition of government contracting concerns, and with the drafting and negotiation of teaming agreements, subcontracts, licensing agreements, and cooperative research and development agreements. She also assists clients applying for federal grants (including SBIR and STTR agreements), and those who seek to obtain other transactional authority agreements, as well as those competing for state and local government work.Tina’s litigation experience includes government contracts claims litigation in federal courts and before boards of contract appeals, bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, and complex disputes in federal courts, including civil fraud and False Claims Act litigation and reverse Freedom of Information Act litigation.Prior to joining Morrison Foerster, Tina worked at another large national firm and as a trial attorney in the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy, Navy Litigation Office.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul><li>Negotiation of largest CHIPS Act federal funding agreement between multinational semiconductor corporation and U.S. Department of Commerce.</li><li>Negotiated prime contract and major subcontracts related to the Department of Energy’s next generation supercomputer program, including extensive IP rights negotiations and negotiation of associated patent rights waivers.</li><li>Negotiated series of other transaction authority agreements with DARPA and associated subcontracts with more than a dozen research universities on behalf of a firm biotech client, including complex IP rights allocations and material transfer agreements.</li><li>Assist clients with FedRAMP authorization process and with development of license agreements for software products sold to federal, state and local government agencies.</li><li>Cyber incident response counseling to some of the largest companies and organizations impacted by security incidents.</li><li>Advises clients on Bayh-Dole reporting of inventions and IP strategies for contracts and grants.</li><li>Conducts due diligence for major government contract mergers and acquisitions.</li></ul>

reynolds_tina_blog_150x150.png

reynolds_tina_common_640x280.jpg

reynolds_tina_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

reynolds_tina_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

reynolds_tina_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Tina is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She counsels a wide variety of government contractors on compliance with federal acquisition and ethics regulations. She drafts and negotiates contracts on their behalf and has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with bid protest, contract claims, and False Claims Act litigation. She also advises on M&A transactions involving government contractors.

Tina D. Reynolds

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters. He has represented both protesters and awardees in scores of protests before the Government Accountability Office, the Court of Federal Claims, and procuring agencies, in acquisitions ranging from small business procurements to multibillion-dollar contracts of global significance. His representative protest matters span the aerospace sector, the Intelligence Community, base operations and logistics, healthcare, nuclear and environmental work, and information technology and software acquisitions. His protests have included both classified and unclassified programs. In addition to prevailing in published decisions, Jim has also secured favorable corrective action on behalf of clients in a wide variety of protests that were resolved without a published decision.Jim’s work also focuses on disputes over cost allowability and compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards, and he has appeared before the Armed Services and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals, in size and status protests before Small Business Administration (SBA) area offices, and appeals before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. Jim regularly counsels clients on contract interpretation, organizational conflicts of interest, and small business compliance.Jim graduated with high honors from the George Washington University Law School, where he focused his studies on federal procurement law, was a member of the Law Review, and interned with the General Services Administration’s suspension and debarment office. Jim also holds a degree in theology magna cum laude from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and a bachelor’s degree in classical languages and literature summa cum laude from the University of Kentucky, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

tucker_james_blog_150x150.png

tucker_james_common_640x280.jpg

tucker_james_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tucker_james_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tucker_james_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Jim maintains an active practice in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and contracting agencies and counsels clients in contract disputes and compliance obligations.

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters.

James Tucker

<div style="margin-bottom: 15px;" class="videoWrapper"><iframe class="sticky-video" title="Meet Alex Ward, Government Contracts Practice Co-Chair" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TkliwdSlTaQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="1" title="iframe"></iframe></div>J. Alex Ward is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement group. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including investigations, bid protests, claims, general litigation, corporate transactions, and counseling. Alex strives in all matters is to provide his clients the highest level of efficient and effective representation.Alex represents contractors in internal and external investigations, disclosures to the government, and qui tam litigation, with great success in reducing or eliminating his clients’ exposure through active engagement with the government. His work in this area includes obtaining numerous declinations and dismissals of False Claims Act cases in their earliest stages, sparing his clients the cost, risk, and exposure of litigation.He has also served as lead counsel in dozens of bid protests involving military and civilian agency procurements of a wide range of products and services, including all manner of pre- and post-award protests in the GAO, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and state tribunals, as well as appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and size protest appeals before the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.Alex handles all aspects of the claims process, from the initial assessment and drafting of requests for equitable adjustment through litigation in the Boards of Contract Appeals and the Court of Federal Claims. Alex’s practice also covers the full gamut of other controversies confronting government contractors, including prime-sub, teaming partner, employer-employee, competitor, and indemnification disputes. His litigation work also includes a wide variety of pro bono engagements, in which he has represented both individual and institutional clients in matters ranging from immigration and criminal defense to sustainable procurement and protection of the environment.Prior to joining the firm, Alex served in the U.S. Army as a commissioned officer and an Assistant to the General Counsel of the Army responsible for civil works and international matters, and as a clerk for judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the D.C. Circuit. He is a member of the Boards of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and of Law360’s Government Contracts Editorial Board.

ward_alex_blog_150x150.png

ward_alex_common_640x280.jpg

ward_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ward_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ward_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alex is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including bid protests, claims, investigations, corporate transactions, and counseling.

J. Alex Ward

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and procurement. Through Insights, attorneys from our nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice will offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments that are shaping the industry. This blog will also examine a full array of U.S. and non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Read about our <a href="http://govcon.mofo.com/editors/">Authors</a>.Never miss a post. Subscribe to get real-time updates.

Brad is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Litigation Department, Managing Partner of the Austin office, and Chair of the firm’s Israel practice. He is the former Co-Chair of the firm’s Global Litigation Practice and the Government Contracts + Public Procurement Practice.

Bradley Wine

gov-con-feature-image-thumb1.jpg

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

gov-con-feature-image_(1)1.jpg

The United States Capitol building

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and proc

Announcements & Press

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

Mofo+

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Our Government Contracts Insights blog provides in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting U.S. government contracting and non-U.S. public procureme

Government Contracts Insights

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Blog - Govcon RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Government Contracts Insights. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The latest updates and analysis from Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster - Footer

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.

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Acquisition Regulations

Artificial Intelligence + Robotics

Compliance

Coronavirus

Cybersecurity & Data Privacy

Data Rights

Defense

Domestic Preferences

False Claims Act

Federal Procurement

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Grants

Health Care

Intellectual Property

International Public Procurement

Labor & Employment

Mergers & Acquisitions

National Security

Protests & Litigation

Resources

Schedule Contracting

Small Business

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Bid Protest Spotlight: Conflict, Latent Ambiguity, Cost Realism | Government Contracts Insights

Markus Gerhard Speidel

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.Deloitte Consulting, LLP[1]Teaming partners may greatly enhance performance. A teammate may add unique experience and expertise.  It is important, however, to ensure teammates are suitable to a specific effort. Teammates are best screened for responsibility and freedom from potential organization conflict of interest (OCI). As the awardee in Deloitte discovered, failure to do so may lead to loss of award. In Deloitte, the GAO found the agency failed to consider the performance impact of the awardee’s attempts to mitigate a potential OCI. After submission of quotes, but before evaluation began, the agency notified the eventual awardee of a potential conflict of interest with one of its teammates. The teammate’s current contract with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency included applicable restrictions on future work. The awardee in response severed relationships with the teammate and notified the agency of its actions. The agency proceeded to evaluate quotes and selected the awardee. The trouble was the agency neither requested revised quotes nor assessed the impact of severing the teammate on the awardee’s likely performance. The protestor had outscored the awardee on both technical and management factors but lost on price. The agency determined that “Deloitte’s superior approach” did not warrant the “higher price premium of $85,652,484,” or 28 percent. Deloitte challenged the agency’s technical evaluation of the awardee as unreasonable, as the quote on which it was based no longer accurately described how the awardee proposed to perform.The agency counterargued that “no material changes” were made to the awardee’s technical price, so the quote was still accurate. The GAO disagreed. The awardee’s quote highlighted the strengths the teammate brought to the team, which unsurprisingly aligned with the solicitation’s performance and delivery requirements. The awardee touted the Team’s resulting value to the agency. For instance, a chart described a specific “accelerator” or pre-built interface, process, or workflow, that was only possible due to the teammate’s inclusion. Moreover, nothing in the record showed the agency had considered how the loss of the teammate would affect performance. The GAO gave little weight to the agency’s post-protest declarations, noting that rather than “fill in gaps in the record; they attempt to create a record.”  The failure to consider the elimination of the teammate caused the GAO to find the technical evaluation of the awardee’s quote unreasonable and sustain the protest.TakeawaysSometimes, despite best efforts, OCI issues arise after submission of offers or quotes.  Here, had the teammate played a less prominent role in the quote or the OCI mitigated more easily, the awardee might have resolved the issue without a proposal revision. Given the circumstances, the awardee might have asked the agency to permit quote revisions. Had the awardee in Deloitte done so, it may have mitigated the potential OCI without jeopardizing its chances of award. Instead, the awardee unilaterally sought to resolve the issue by severing its teammate. As a consequence, the awardee found itself thrown out of the frying pan and into the fire: its quote was inaccurate and the agency’s evaluation unreasonable.Kauffman and Associates, Inc.[2]Ambiguities arise where parties offer two or more reasonable but conflicting interpretations of a solicitation’s plain language. Two flavors of ambiguities exist: patent and latent. Patent ambiguities, those which are obvious, gross, or glaring, must be raised before the date set for submission of quotes or offers. Latent ambiguities are more subtle and may be raised once a party becomes aware of the other’s differing yet reasonable interpretation. While generally more difficult to detect, latent ambiguities may prove to be a potent way to reset a competition.In Kauffman, the GAO handed the agency a resounding defeat. Sustaining five of the protestor’s grounds, the GAO sent the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) back to the drawing board, recommending the agency revise the solicitation, allow vendors to submit revised quotes, and pay the protestor associated protest costs and attorneys’ fees. The big win resulted when the protestor identified a myriad of agency errors: a latent ambiguity in the solicitation’s requirements, unequal treatment, inconsistent, unsupported, and unreasonable technical evaluations, and a faulty price evaluation.CMS sought quotes for training services for the Indian Health Service on CMS benefits and programs, under the procedures of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. The solicitation was issued to five vendors. The agency was determined to accept the best-value quote, defined as the highest technically rated quote with reasonable pricing. Quotes were evaluated on the basis of five equally weighted factors: (1) technical approach; (2) personnel; (3) management plan; (4) past performance; and (5) cost. Two or more significant weaknesses under a single factor knocked a vendor out of competition.The agency botched each factor’s evaluation.The first issue, the one that led to revision of the solicitation, was a latent ambiguity in the technical approach factor. In Kauffman, the ambiguity turned on the solicitation’s statement that the evaluation would “consider each [vendor’s] documentation of the interrelationship between this effort and others already out in the field.” The agency interpreted the phrase to indicate that vendors needed to demonstrate their prior experience providing training support. As a result, the agency assigned one of two significant weaknesses to the protestor’s quote for failing to document prior successful trainings. The protestor argued that the requirement was forward-looking, with the requirement assessing how the vendor’s effort would dovetail with others “in the field.” The GAO found the cited language unclear as to whether vendors needed to demonstrate relevant prior experience. As a result, because the ambiguity led to one of the two significant weaknesses under the technical approach and had knocked the protestor out of competition, the GAO sustained the protest on this basis alone.Kauffman also prevailed in challenging the second significant weakness assigned for technical approach. CMS faulted Kauffman for not submitting a plan to track and deploy continuing education units. The protestor pointed out that the agency had essentially ignored the same weakness in the awardee’s proposal and thus not treated the vendors even-handedly. The GAO agreed.Under the personnel factor, the protestor argued that the awardee had failed to explain how personnel would be integrated, what the responsibilities of proposed personnel would be, or how their time would be allocated under the contract, as required by the terms of the solicitation. The agency had no answer. The GAO sustained the protest.Under the management plan factor, Kauffman challenged the evaluation as unreasonable because the awardee failed to describe how it would protect proprietary and confidential data, a solicitation requirement. The agency sought to waive away the omission as a “clerical error,” arguing it had failed to check the appropriate evaluation box. According to the agency, the error was of no consequence because both vendors received excellent ratings under the factor and thus were “treated equally.” The GAO disagreed. The GAO found that had the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee’s management plan, it likely would have assigned a weakness and a lower rating, making the error more than clerical.Kauffman successfully challenged the agency’s past performance evaluation as unreasonable and incompatible with the solicitation. The solicitation instructed vendors to disclose past performance in a separate administrative volume, yet CMS assigned the awardee a strength based on information contained in the technical volume. The GAO agreed with the protestor and sustained the protest on this basis as well.The protestor also challenged CMS’s price evaluation. In particular, the protestor argued CMS unreasonably found the awardee’s price to be “fair, reasonable, and realistic,” when in fact the quoted prices impermissibly exceeded the awardee’s FSS pricing. The GAO sustained the argument. While vendors may discount prices below their FSS rates, vendors may not propose higher rates. The agency’s attempt to dismiss the issue by claiming the discrepancy required “a simple clarification” and had no bearing on the award decision fell flat. The record showed no attempt to notify the awardee of the discrepancy, and correction would have required revised pricing to make the quote eligible for award.TakeawaysA latent ambiguity, if found, is a potent means to drive greater corrective action. The protestor in Kauffman found numerous protest grounds and successfully challenged CMS’s evaluation under each of the five factors. Yet it was the latent ambiguity in the solicitation that prompted the GAO to send CMS back to the drawing board to revise its solicitation. This provided a full reset of the competition.   Conti Federal Services, LLC[3]In cost-type contracts, where the government is bound to pay the contractor its actual allowable costs, an offeror’s proposed estimated costs are not dispositive. Consequently, when evaluating proposals for cost-type contracts, an agency must conduct a cost realism analysis to determine if the proposed estimate is unrealistically low for the work to be performed. If an agency finds a proposed cost to be unrealistic, the agency has broad discretion to calculate a most probable cost (MPC) and upwardly adjust the proposed cost for evaluation purposes. Cost adjustments, however, must remain reasonable.In Conti, the protestor leap-frogged from third in line for award after the agency botched the cost realism analysis. The agency sought environmental remediation services for a superfund site. The solicitation contemplated award of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee award.  Notably, all non-cost factors combined were approximately equal to cost.The agency established a competitive range consisting of the three most highly rated offerors. The agency rated Conti’s proposal equally under the non-cost factors but noted that Conti’s strengths were less well aligned to the proposed work than the awardee’s. As the MPC put Conti’s offer $6,500 higher than the awardee’s, the agency determined Conti’s offer was not worth the price premium. The agency found the awardee’s proposal, which it considered to be technically superior to the third offer, did merit the associated price premium.  There was a fly in the ointment, however. The agency, in calculating Conti’s MPC, used the labor rate of a superintendent for the site safety and health officer Conti proposed. Conti argued the adjusted rate was unreasonable as a superintendent required higher qualifications and more duties than the position proposed. Moreover, the agency’s use of the superintendent rate resulted in an MPC that was higher than the independent government estimate (IGE). In response to the protest, Agency council proposed an “updated” MPC based on median salaries for the position listed on salary.com, which was even lower. The GAO found that in proposing an “updated” MPC, the agency admitted its original MPC was unreasonable. Moreover, had the agency used either the IGE or the “updated” MPC, the agency would have marked up Conti’s offer by $21,000 to $66,000 less. Either alternative would have erased the $6,500 cost delta between the protestor and awardee, and potentially changed the best value analysis, thus prejudicing Conti. Consequently, the GAO sustained the protest and recommended re-evaluation and reimbursement of protest costs.TakeawaysWhen competing for a cost-type contract, if not selected for award it is important to double check any upward adjustment that the agency made once given a post-award debriefing.  While an agency may calculate a realistic MPC for evaluation purposes, an agency’s markup must remain reasonable. Although GAO caselaw states agencies may not apply the IGE woodenly, if the markup exceeds the agency’s own IGE and results in altering the cost-ranking of offers, the agency may open the door to a sustainable protest.[1] Deloitte Consulting, LLP, B-422094; B-422094.2, Jan. 18, 2024 (Publicly released on Feb. 1, 2024).[2] Kauffman and Associates, Inc., B-421917.2; B-421917.3, Jan. 29, 2024 (publicly released on Feb. 12, 2024).[3] Conti Federal Services, LLC, B-422162, et seq., Feb. 1, 2024 (publicly released on Feb. 14, 2024).

Bid Protest Spotlight: Conflict, Latent Ambiguity, Cost Realism

More

Associate

The Tortured Regulations Department: SBA’s New Rule and Its Effect on Investments

Bid Protest Spotlight: Standing, Relationships, Responsibility

House’s Passage of the SAMOSA Act Signals Policy Shift Towards Government-Wide Enterprise Software Licensing

New DFARS Regulation on Small Business Affiliate Past Performance

Bid Protest Spotlight: Unclear Criteria, Data Rights, Conflicts

LinkedIN