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

Sometimes a comparison of cases best illustrates the law. This month we analyze a double pair of recent GAO decisions. First, in CharDonnay and Triple Canopy, we compare decisions dissecting the merits of 

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

November 2022 Bid Protest Roundup: Best-Value Tradeoffs, Solicitations | Government Contracts Insights

Markus Gerhard Speidel

Sometimes a comparison of cases best illustrates the law. This month we analyze a double pair of recent GAO decisions. First, in CharDonnay and Triple Canopy, we compare decisions dissecting the merits of best-value determinations. Second, in Orlans and Cellco, we contrast pre-award challenges to whether an agency’s market research adequately established customary commercial practices. After each, we offer the government contractor a few takeaways.Dissecting Best Value Determinations<div><a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723734.pdf" target="_blank">CharDonnay Dialysis LLC</a><a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723734.pdf">, B-420910</a></div>In CharDonnay Dialysis, the GAO agreed that the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision was flawed. The procurement at issue involved dialysis treatment services for the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons. Despite faltering in challenges to the agency’s dismissal of a late proposal revision, discussions, and price and technical evaluations, the protestor ultimately succeeded in challenging the agency’s best-value determination. The agency’s defense failed because it relied solely on the adjectival ratings—rather than the relative merits—when deciding the proposals were “essentially equal.” Adjectival ratings are no substitute for the underlying merits when making a best-value tradeoff decision. Because the agency’s source selection decision referenced only the identical adjectival ratings, the GAO could not find the agency’s conclusions reasonable.At first blush, the proposals received similar evaluations, and in fact received identical adjectival ratings under the non-price evaluation factors: The protestor’s technical rating was very good, as was the awardee’s; the protestor’s past performance rating was exceptional, as was the awardee’s. The protestor’s price was $19.6 million while the awardee’s price was $19.4 million—a difference of one percent.  In the best-value decision, the first two factors—technical and past performance—were to be weighed equally to price. During the technical evaluation, the agency identified substantive differences in the proposals, including the protestor’s weaknesses (such as encouraging, rather than requiring, communication between the contractor and the agency facility). The agency’s error lay in not citing these substantive differences when determining that the proposals were “essentially equal,” and choosing the awardee based on price. The protestor contended that in so doing, the agency impermissibly converted the best-value tradeoff decision into a lowest-price, technically acceptable decision, contrary to the terms of the solicitation.The GAO agreed and stated, “When an agency reasonably evaluates competing proposals as essentially equal, no tradeoff is required in selecting the lower-priced proposal.” That does not excuse the agency from discussing the underlying merits. “When an agency finds offerors' proposals to be essentially equal, the selection official must explain the basis for why proposals are considered essentially equal.” In doing so, “an agency cannot simply rely on the fact that proposals have the same adjectival ratings.”  The record was devoid of evidence that in the final source selection decision, the “agency meaningfully looked behind the adjectival ratings―or even attempted to compare the proposals in any fashion―before finding the proposals to be technically equal, and making the selection decision based on price.” Accordingly, the GAO could not conclude that the best-value tradeoff decision was reasonable and sustained the protest.<div><a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723681.pdf">Triple Canopy Inc.</a><a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723681.pdf" target="_blank">, B-420691.2; B-420691.3</a></div>In Triple Canopy, the protestor’s challenge to a best-value tradeoff decision stumbled when the agency pointed to substantive differences between the proposals when justifying the selection of an offeror notwithstanding the price premium. Though awardee’s bid was significantly more costly, the GAO found no basis to object because the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the selection criteria and terms of the solicitation.The procurement involved a task order for base security operations and services at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. Proposals were evaluated based on three factors: (1) technical, (2) past performance, and (3) price, with the technical factor evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and past performance weighed significantly more than price. On price, the protestor’s proposal cost $55 million while the awardee’s proposal cost $79 million―a whopping 45 percent higher price premium.  The protestor contended that the agency’s best-value tradeoff selection decision was flawed because the agency’s underlying evaluations of past performances were unreasonable. The GAO disagreed. While the protestor identified one past performance reference, the awardee submitted four past performance references (two as a prime contractor and two for proposed subcontractors). For the past performance factor, the awardee and protestor received the same recency and relevancy ratings of recent/somewhat relevant, but the protestor was assigned a lower confidence rating of neutral confidence, whereas the awardee was assigned a rating of satisfactory confidence.  The GAO found that agency reasonably determined that the protestor “failed to demonstrate past performance which encompassed the full scope of the PWS.”  Moreover, the agency reasonably determined that because the protestor’s sole reference did not support the quality ratings that were provided with a narrative describing the nature of the work performed, the record was “so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating could reasonably be assigned.”  In contrast, the awardee’s narratives provided substantive details, describing the nature of the work performed and how performance exceeded task order requirements. Because the agency reasonably compared the assessments against differences in price, the agency was justified in selecting the offeror in which it had higher confidence, despite the price premium.Takeaways:   <ul><li>First, identical adjectival ratings do not necessarily mean proposals are equal under the non-price factors or that the lower price automatically wins. An agency must show it meaningfully considered the substantive merits of the competing proposals when determining which provides the better value. An agency that relies solely upon adjectival ratings in making its best-value determination is an agency in trouble. This may be the case even where the agency selects the lower priced offeror.</li><li>Second, it’s not always about the money. One might think that the larger the price differential between offers, the easier to show the agency made the wrong tradeoff decision. But, as Triple Canopy shows, an agency may successfully defend a vast price premium (even 45 percent) if the agency adequately documents meaningful differences between offers. </li><li>Third, it is always about the record. The successful protestor must ground arguments both in law and facts. The same legal strategy of challenging the best-value decision succeeded when the contractor caught the agency summarily relying on adjectival ratings but failed when the agency could reasonably point to substantive differences in justifying a far higher price tag.</li></ul>Challenging Agencies’ Customary Commercial Practice Findings1. <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723639.pdf">Orlans PC</a><a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723639.pdf">, B-420905</a>In Orlans, the protestor successfully alleged that various terms of the agency’s commercial services solicitation were “contrary to customary commercial practice,” and thus contrary to law. The solicitation sought nationwide default management services for the USDA’s Rural Development Single Family Direct Loan portfolio. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires an agency to assess customary commercial practices via market research before issuing a solicitation for commercial items or services. Moreover, agencies may not tailor solicitations for commercial items in a manner inconsistent with customary commercial practices (without a waiver). Here, the protestor contended that several requirements pertaining to fees and invoicing were inconsistent with customary commercial practices, and thus unduly restrictive of competition. The GAO agreed, sustaining the protest. The agency raised two defenses, to no avail. First, the agency argued that the protestor’s allegations were legally and factually insufficient because they failed to establish what the customary commercial practices were and therefore could not show that the terms of the request for proposal (RFP) were contrary to such practices. Second, and relatedly, the agency argued its market research showed no customary commercial practices existed for the services sought because responses to its request for information (RFI) varied considerably.The GAO considered each defense in turn. First, the GAO noted, “a protester bears the initial burden of sufficiently alleging how the provision is contrary to customary commercial practice.” However, the protestor met this burden by pleading with sufficient detail how the solicitation deviated from customary practices and supported its allegations with a sworn declaration from an employee with substantial commercial experience. The burden of production thus shifted to the government to respond to the allegations.Second, the GAO found the agency’s RFI did not seek information establishing the customary commercial practices. Instead, the RFI prompted potential offerors to answer open-ended questions regarding recommended pricing structures and how the agency should seek to price services.  One question, for example, asked, “[d]o you have any suggestions on pricing for each service…?” The GAO found such questions failed to demonstrate “either what customary commercial practices are or that no customary commercial practices exist.” The GAO also waved aside the agency’s claim that these were the same terms it used for six years prior.  The GAO said that it was generally not reasonable for the agency to “rely on other government contracts as a basis for establishing customary commercial practice.” The GAO therefore found the agency did not demonstrate “with adequate market research or otherwise” that the objected-to pricing terms are consistent with customary commercial practices. Thus, the agency was unable to adequately respond to the protestor’s challenge to the solicitation’s terms, and the GAO sustained the protest.<div><a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723685.pdf" target="_blank">Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless</a><a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723685.pdf">, B-420911</a></div>In Cellco, the GAO decided on the opposite result, finding the VA conducted sufficient market research to establish that the terms of its solicitation comported with established commercial practices. The VA here sought to acquire enterprise-wide mobile communications devices and services on a FAR Part 12 commercial basis. The protestor argued that the VA impermissibly sought to use commercial acquisition procedures to obtain non-commercial products and services. The agency’s initial market research indicated that only the nation’s three largest providers were technically capable of meeting the agency’s requirements. However, when the protestor sent the agency several questions challenging whether the requirements were consistent with customary commercial practices, the agency responded with a second round of market research, asking the big three providers about their customary commercial practices. At least one of the three major providers indicated that it offered all requirements as a part of its customary commercial products and services.The GAO denied the protestor’s argument that because the agency was unable to purchase its requirements from the GSA FSS contracts, the requirements were not commercially available. The GAO pointed out that “GSA FSS contracts are government contracts, not commercial contracts,” and so were a poor indication of what was commercially available. Instead, it was the agency’s market research which showed “what is actually available commercially.”The GAO also declined to be bound by an earlier decision in Red River Waste Solutions, LP,B–411760.2, Jan. 20, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 45, which found that the mere “fact that a single firm offered its services on [a given] basis did not establish that it was a customary commercial practice.” The GAO pointed out that the FAR does not “stipulate any particular market share thresholds for determining commerciality.” The GAO then distinguished Red River, in which “thousands” of vendors performed the sought-after services locally, from the present situation in which only three vendors in the entire country were even capable of providing the services, and one already did so commercially.  The GAO concluded, “The simple fact of the matter is that the contested services are offered commercially.” Thus, the agency properly solicited its requirements on a commercial basis, and the GAO sustained the protest.Takeaways:<ul><li>To successfully protest a decision based on market research, an offeror must provide legally and factually sufficient allegations by stating precisely how the solicitation deviated from customary commercial practices and provide supporting documentation. While not always required, a signed declaration may be powerful evidence that is sufficient to shift the burden of production to the agency.</li><li>When contemplating a challenge to a solicitation’s requirements as contrary to customary commercial practices, a contractor must consider the offerings of its competitors. The FAR does not “stipulate any particular market share thresholds for determining commerciality.” How many competitors must offer a good, service, or feature to establish it as a customary commercial practice depends on the circumstances. Where just a few competitors exist, the commercial offerings of just one may suffice.  </li></ul>Cody Kornack, a Law Clerk in our Washington, D.C. office, contributed to the writing of this article.

November 2022 Bid Protest Roundup: Best-Value Tradeoffs, Solicitations

More

Associate

Less Oversight and Undefined Penalties: The NDAA’s Proposed Protest Reforms

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

LinkedIN