News & Analysis as of

Standing › Subcontractors › Bid Protests

Holland & Hart LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Bid Protest Standing: Must Be Actual or Prospective Bidder

Holland & Hart LLP on

On August 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an important en banc decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States that notably clarifies who qualifies as an “interested party” with standing to bring a bid protest under the...more

Wiley Rein LLP

Federal Circuit Holds En Banc That Only “Actual or Prospective Bidders or Offerors” May Protest at COFC

Wiley Rein LLP on

WHAT: In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a 7-4 en banc decision that the definition of “interested party” under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)) remains...more

Blank Rome LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies “Interested Party” Status in Percipient.ai v. United States

Blank Rome LLP on

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...more

Wiley Rein LLP

Federal Circuit Expands Standing and Jurisdiction in Protests at the Court

Wiley Rein LLP on

WHAT: In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) “task order bar” does not apply to claims that an...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide