On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Percipient.ai’s (Percipient) petition for certiorari, leaving in place an en banc Federal Circuit decision that restricts who qualifies as an “interested party” eligible to bring a bid protest at the U.S. Court
Federal Circuit Clarifies “Interested Party” Status in Government Contract Bid Protests
Whether a protester has standing to challenge a government bid process or award is typically clear for actual bidders, but it can be less clear for lower-tier participants like subcontractors and prospective bidders. The Federal Circuit recently added some clarity.
En Banc Decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States: Federal Circuit Holds That Only Actual or Prospective Bidders or Offerors Have Bid Protest Standing Under Tucker Act
This blog previously covered the Federal Circuit’s decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, which addressed bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), and seemed to potentially open the door to a new category of
En Banc Decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States: Federal Circuit Holds That Only Actual or Prospective Bidders or Offerors Have Bid Protest Standing Under Tucker Act
This blog previously covered the Federal Circuit’s decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, which addressed bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), and seemed to potentially open the door to a new category of
Federal Circuit Clarifies “Interested Party” Status in Percipient.ai v. United States
Robyn N. Burrows and Michael Joseph Montalbano ● When a Federal Circuit panel held that subcontractors had standing to challenge procurement violations, Judge Clevenger warned of a flood. Under the panel’s holding, thousands of subcontractors could inundate the Court of Federal Claims
Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S.: Government Requests Reconsideration of Federal Circuit’s Decision on Bid Protest Jurisdiction and Standing
As previously discussed on this blog, the Federal Circuit issued a major decision in June 2024 addressing bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”): Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States.
On September 5, 2024,
Special Edition of the Fastest 5 Minutes:
Federal Circuit Protest Ruling in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States
This special edition covers the Federal Circuit’s June 2024 protest decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, and is hosted by Yuan Zhou and Anuj Vohra. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest
Big Bang?: The Federal Circuit, Percipient.ai, and Expanding Jurisdiction
In Percipient.ai v. United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may have triggered a legal “Big Bang” moment in government procurement law. The case centered on whether the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s (FASA) “task order
Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States: The Federal Circuit’s expansion of bid protest task order jurisdiction and standing
The Federal Circuit’s June 7, 2024 decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States expanded the Court of Federal Claim’s bid protest jurisdiction and opens the door for increased scrutiny of agencies’ procurement practices involving the use of commercial products and services.
Click
Federal Circuit Narrows FASA Task Order Bar; Expands “Interested Party” Standing
In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit considered Percipient.ai Inc.’s (Percipient) protest arising out of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s (NGA) SAFFIRE procurement, for the improvement of the agency’s production, storage, and integration of geospatial intelligence data. Percipient’s