1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Finds Eight Days Insufficient for FPR Response

GAO Finds Eight Days Insufficient for FPR Response

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.03.19

In a recently published decision, MCR Federal, LLC, GAO sustained a protest challenging the required response date for final proposal revisions in a task order procurement. Specifically, as part of its voluntary corrective action in response to an earlier post award protest by MCR, the agency issued MCR two “interchange notices” stating concerns related to experience levels and the contingent-hire nature of the majority of MCR’s proposed staffing, and permitting MCR two days to “either revise or confirm” its proposal. MCR again protested that the allotted two days were insufficient. In response, the agency extended the deadline to a total of eight days and then moved to dismiss. GAO declined to dismiss. Instead, it sustained MCR’s protest, finding eight days insufficient to provide MCR a fair opportunity to improve its proposal. Subsequently, GAO dismissed the agency’s reconsideration request and declined to recommend a specific time period for final proposal revisions. 


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....