Photo of Kayleigh Scalzo

Kayleigh Scalzo

Ranked by Chambers USA among government contracts practitioners, Kayleigh Scalzo represents government contractors in bid protests and other high-stakes litigation matters with the government and other private parties. She has litigated bid protests in a wide variety of forums, including the Government Accountability Office, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, FAA Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition, federal and state agencies, and state courts.

Kayleigh a co-chair of the American Bar Association Public Contract Law Section’s Bid Protest Committee. She is also a frequent speaker on bid protest issues.

Kayleigh maintains an active pro bono practice focused on immigration issues and gender rights.

Contact:Read more about Kayleigh ScalzoEmail

In his first few days in office, President Trump issued several executive orders (“EOs”) and memoranda, many of which may have implications for federal contractors and grant recipients, including the following:Continue Reading President Trump Issues Numerous Executive Orders with Potential Impacts on Federal Contractors and Grant Recipients

Yesterday, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule that would update the U.S. Government’s approach to organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).  While the proposed rule is not finalized and may change in response to forthcoming comments from interested parties, the proposed rule contemplates major changes to the FAR’s existing framework in this area.  In this post, we summarize the background leading up to the proposed rule and highlight key areas of proposed change.

Background

Continue Reading The Proposed FAR Rule on OCIs: Big Changes May Be Coming

In what has become an annual tradition, this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) — just passed by the Senate and sent to the President for signature — contains a provision addressing bid protests at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).

Likely of greatest interest to contractors is that Section 885 contains language increasing the dollar threshold for protests of task order awards under a Department of Defense indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (“IDIQ”) contract, from $25,000,000 to $35,000,000.  The increased threshold would further limit the universe of task orders that can be protested under DoD IDIQ contracts. 

Section 885 also requires GAO to prepare a “Proposal for Payment of Costs for Certain Government Accountability Office Bid Protests.”  This provision is likely part of the Department of Defense’s years-long campaign to impose a “loser pays” penalty on protesters in an effort to curb what it says is a problem of frivolous protests — even though GAO’s annual bid protest statistics show that the majority of protests result in relief to the protester, as evidenced by an effectiveness rate of 52%.  DoD’s effort has dated back at least to the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA, which included an analogous pilot program proposal. More recently, as discussed in our August 21, 2023, post entitled “Should Bid Protest Losers Pay?” Section 804 of the House-enacted NDAA for Fiscal Year 2024 included a pilot proposal for a “loser pays” program.Continue Reading NDAA Increases Threshold for Task Order Protests and Directs Another Study on Whether Losing Protesters Should Pay

On November 14, 2024, GAO released its Bid Protest Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2024, which provides bid protest statistics and other interesting information regarding GAO’s protest system.

  • The number of protest filings decreased by 11% from FY23.  After a 22% increase between FY22 and FY23
… Continue Reading GAO’s Annual Bid Protest Report: Fiscal Year 24 Protest Filings and Sustain Rate Fell after Unusually High Fiscal Year 23

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, the United States filed a petition for rehearing of that case — requesting that the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision, either through a rehearing by the same panel or by the full court in an en banc proceeding.  Subsequently, on September 26, 2024, the protester (Percipient) filed an opposition to the petition.  It will be worth watching whether the Federal Circuit grants the government’s petition and, if so, whether any rehearing will result in a change to Percipient.ai’s holdings.Continue Reading Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S.:  Government Requests Reconsideration of Federal Circuit’s Decision on Bid Protest Jurisdiction and Standing

On June 7, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a major decision addressing bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”).  In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the court found that COFC has jurisdiction to hear a protest challenging a matter of contract administration — even where the matter arose in connection with a task order — and articulated a new test for standing applicable to the facts presented in that case. Continue Reading Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S.:  Matters of Contract Administration Can Be Fair Game For COFC Protests, Even When They Involve a Task Order

Section 804 of the House-enacted version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 would establish a “loser pays” pilot program to require contractors to reimburse the Department of Defense for costs incurred in “processing” bid protests that are ultimately denied by the Government Accountability Office.  The accompanying House Armed Services Committee report explains the provision’s intent as “curtailing wasteful contract disputes.” Continue Reading Should Bid Protest Losers Pay?

On May 10, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision regarding bid protest standing in CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States et al.  In that decision, the court declared previous decisions to no longer be good law and held that the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding the protester to lack standing.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Weighs in on Bid Protest Standing and Departs from Prior Cases