In Kansas, vendors dissatisfied with the conduct of a competitive procurement — whether due to an award decision, solicitation specifications, or other irregularities — must understand how to navigate the state’s bid protest process.
This guide provides an overview of the Kansas bid protest framework and a detailed explanation of the Vendor Bid Protest Procedure
Commercial tech and AI companies entering the federal market face a hard lesson: Federal contracts do not work like commercial software licenses. GSA’s proposed AI clause is where that lesson gets expensive.
If your company sells software or AI-powered services commercially, your deal model is built on familiar assumptions: You license your product, you retain
The comment period closed. The clause survived. When GSA issues Refresh 32, existing Schedule holders will have 60 days to accept — or risk losing their contracts. Here is how to use the time you have left.
The market has spent six weeks debating whether GSA’s proposed AI clause — GSAR 552.239-7001 — is good
Bid protests in Maine are governed by a relatively structured administrative framework that provides disappointed bidders and other “aggrieved persons” with a defined right to challenge contract and grant award decisions. Unlike more informal state procurement protest regimes, Maine law — particularly 5 M.R.S.A. § 1825-E — establishes mandatory procedures, strict deadlines, and a formal
Alaska’s bid protest framework provides an administrative process for challenging solicitation terms, proposed awards, and awarded contracts — but it is highly procedural, fast-moving, and strictly deadline-driven. As a result, involving experienced legal counsel early in the process is often critical to preserving protest rights and positioning the contractor for a meaningful remedy. Below is
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that IBM agreed to pay $17,077,043 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) in connection with its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring and employment practices. This resolution — the first under the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative — underscores heightened regulatory scrutiny
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The ruling invalidated a broad set of tariffs imposed by executive order under IEEPA and reaffirmed that the constitutional
The U.S. Department of Justice recently expanded and clarified its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP), significantly strengthening incentives for corporations to report misconduct to the government. The policy is part of a broader effort to standardize corporate enforcement practices and reward companies that promptly disclose wrongdoing, cooperate with investigators and remediate misconduct.
A suspension notice from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) can have immediate and significant consequences for a participant in the 8(a) Business Development Program. While a suspension is not the same as a final termination, it typically halts a firm’s ability to receive new 8(a) contract awards and may jeopardize its continued participation in
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced recently that settlements and judgments under the False Claims Act (FCA) exceeded $6.8 billion in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025 — the highest single-year total in the statute’s history. The announcement underscores the continued centrality of the FCA in the federal government’s fraud-enforcement arsenal.
Since Congress substantially