article thumbnail

Friday Flash 08/23/2024

The Coalition for Government Procurement

4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).

article thumbnail

Friday Flash 08/09/2024

The Coalition for Government Procurement

4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).

professionals

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Friday Flash 08/02/2024

The Coalition for Government Procurement

4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).

article thumbnail

Friday Flash 08/16/2024

The Coalition for Government Procurement

4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).

article thumbnail

The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Legal Donnybrook Has Arrived

Procurement Notes

15] Despite the broad description, in the context of a procurement contract or a real property lease, the GovCon Order only applies to the following types of contracts. “(i) 6701 et seq.; (iii) However, the Supreme Court has established that a company cannot be a Bivens defendant, only an individual. See Constitutional Servs.