We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
USA - April 16 2012
In March 2010, the U.S. Government rolled out a new tool promised to provide a centralized source for all publicly available contractor past performance and integrity information – the Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”).
USA - January 11 2012
Our previous discussions of the Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”) posted here in June 2010 and March 2011, urged contractors generally to manage affirmatively FAPIIS and, specifically, to: (i) place a high priority on entry and updating of data into FAPIIS; (ii) take advantage of every opportunity to comment on, explain or rebut information posted in FAPIIS; and (iii) be alert for Government posting of harmful information, in particular information potentially protected from disclosure by a Freedom of Information Act disclosure exemption, Exemption 4.
USA - October 24 2011
On February 11, 2011, the Small Business Administration issued final regulations addressing an array of issues relating to the agency’s programs, including the size standards applicable to nonmanufacturers or dealers, the elimination of the vexing use of both SIC and NAICS codes for size standards and adoption of the latter as the sole criteria for use in the standards, and the 8(a) mentor-protégé program. 76 Fed. Reg. 8222 (Feb. 11, 2011).
USA - July 15 2011
We’ve previously complained about the FAR Council’s tendency to take too much time to issue rules that entail consideration of complex subject matter, as indicated, for example, by the 13 years during which the Council dallied before issuing final rules for commercial off the shelf items, discussed here.
USA - July 15 2011
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims' (“COFC”) decision in Jacobs Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-180C, 2011 WL 2044581 (Fed. Cl. May 26, 2011) (“Jacobs Technology”) does double duty, affirming once again the availability of the COFC as a convenient forum for aggrieved offerors challenging a resolicitation and providing us a useful primer on the perennial issues of jurisdiction, ripeness, standing, and agency discretion in the context of pre-award protests.
