data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebfa5/ebfa57228c5efc94cb0e78570c26188b9702910a" alt="Bid Protest Clause in 2025 Defense Authorization Act: Implications for Contractors and Legal Practitioners"
Bid Protest Clause in 2025 Defense Authorization Act: Implications for Contractors and Legal Practitioners
The 2025 Defense Authorization Act introduces a pilot program requiring companies losing bid protests to reimburse the DoD and GAO. Explore its implications for contractors, legal professionals, and the future of federal procurement oversight.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/43014/430148bb91731cf469f8fc3e583f1b05bf4af745" alt="An Examination of the Consequences of Neglecting to Raise Objections to Patent Errors in Federal Solicitations: The United States Case of M.R. Pittman Group LLC"
An Examination of the Consequences of Neglecting to Raise Objections to Patent Errors in Federal Solicitations: The United States Case of M.R. Pittman Group LLC
The legal case "M.R. Pittman Group LLC v. United States" revolves around a bid protest by M.R. Pittman Group LLC (Pittman) against the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The protest was filed due to a contract awarded for repairing pump units in Louisiana, which Pittman contested. The central issue was the omission of a specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code in the solicitation, which Pittman argued invalidated the small business set-aside nature of the contract.