Category: Elizabeth N. Jochum

SBA Continues to Demand Unwarranted Repayment from Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program Recipients

Dominique L. Casimir, Shane A. Pennington, Elizabeth N. Jochum, and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) began demanding repayment of grant funds distributed to more than 600 businesses under the COVID-era Shuttered Venue Operators Grant (“SVOG”) Program in June 2025. The purpose of the SVOG Program was to provide emergency assistance to eligible businesses that organize, promote, produce, manage, or host live performing arts events. To be eligible for a grant under the SVOG Program, grantees had to submit extensive documentation satisfying the eligibility criteria under 15 U.S.C. § 9009a. Years later, well after the SBA determined that applicants were eligible for grant funds, and well after the approved grantees spent their grant funds as required under the terms of the grants themselves, the SBA is reversing en masse hundreds of it its own prior eligibility determinations and demanding repayment of grant funds in full, with potentially catastrophic effects for grantees. 

Continue reading “SBA Continues to Demand Unwarranted Repayment from Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program Recipients”

GAO Sharpens Its Pleading Standard Description: But Did GAO Raise the Bar?

David L. Bodner, Elizabeth N. Jochum, Stephanie M. Harden, and Luke W. Meier ●

In a recent decision, GAO announced that it was clarifying its pleading standard for bid protests. For many years, GAO had described a minimally acceptable protest pleading as one with “either allegations or evidence sufficient” to establish a likelihood of improper agency action. Going forward, as articulated in Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B-423546, B-423546.2, Aug. 5, 2025, 2025 WL 2237333, the standard now calls for “credible allegations that are supported by evidence and are sufficient” to make that showing. GAO linked this revised formulation to a request from Congress in Section 885 of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act to clarify and enhance its pleading standard. 

It is not immediately clear whether this means a change in protest practice at GAO. GAO seemed to suggest that the updated language was not a change to the pleading standard itself, but a clarification to better align the stated legal standard with its longstanding stance that “‘bare allegations’ or allegations based upon ‘information and belief’ are not sufficient to meet our pleading standards.” We will be closely watching how GAO applies the standard in its decisions to fully understand the level of evidence required to clear GAO’s pleading standard, and it is likely to remain a heavily fact-specific analysis. Regardless, protesters, as ever, should make sure they substantiate allegations with evidence and awardees should retain counsel to safeguard their interests through effective dismissal requests.

Continue reading “GAO Sharpens Its Pleading Standard Description: But Did GAO Raise the Bar?”

Blank Rome Attorneys Appointed to American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Section Leadership for the 2025–2026 Term

We are pleased to announce that a record nine attorneys from Blank Rome’s nationally recognized Government Contracts group have been appointed to leadership roles in the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Public Contract Law Section for the 2025–2026 term.

Visit our website to learn more about their roles and ABA’s Section of Public Contract Law.

60-Second Sustains: BrightPoint, LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum and David L. Bodner ●

Protest of: BrightPoint, LLC
B-423392, B-423392.2, B-423392.3

  • BrightPoint raised numerous challenges to the Department of Agriculture’s evaluation and award of a task order for information technology services.
  • The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustained one protest ground: that the discriminators identified by the Agency to justify its award decision were based on the awardee’s experience with work unrelated to the anticipated work scope and also possessed and demonstrated by Brightpoint.
  • In response to this protest ground, the Agency argued “in general terms” that its evaluation was reasonable and equal.
  • But GAO noted that the Agency did not demonstrate a connection between the Solicitation’s requirements and the positive findings it gave to the awardee’s experience.
  • The Agency also did not “meaningfully respond” to Brightpoint’s allegations of unequal treatment, stating only that it treated offerors equally.
  • GAO determined that, but for the discriminators identified in favor of the awardee, Brightpoint might have been selected for award, even at a small price premium.
  • GAO recommended the Agency reevaluate the prior experience volumes and make a new source selection decision.

Blank Rome’s Government Contracts Practice and Attorneys Highly Ranked in Chambers USA 2025

Blank Rome’s Government Contracts practice was ranked in Band 2 in Government Contracts: The Elite, USA in the Chambers USA 2025 rankings, placing our team among the top 10 law firms in the nationwide rankings.

Chambers quoted a government contracts reference as saying that “The firm has specialized expertise as well as a broader perspective on the issues at play.”

Chambers USA included four of our attorneys in their 2025 Government Contracts rankings: Dominique L. Casimir, Justin A. Chiarodo, Elizabeth N. Jochum, and Luke W. Meier, with Elizabeth receiving an additional ranking for “Government Contracts: Bid Protests.”

To view all of Blank Rome’s Chambers USA 2025 rankings, please visit our website.

FAR on the Chopping Block: Potential Impacts on Protests

Elizabeth N. Jochum and Robyn N. Burrows ●

As those in the federal contracting community wait anxiously for rumored and hinted at changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), we are beginning to evaluate how certain of those changes might most impact our clients. In the first of a series engaging in some mild—or wild, depending on your outlook—speculation about these potential changes, we take a look at how the removal of certain FAR requirements might impact bid protests.

One of the cardinal rules of bid protests is that protests not alleging solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(b). There is a key exception, however—for procurements under which a debriefing is requested. If requested, a debriefing is required, and the initial protest cannot be filed before the debriefing date offered and must be filed no later than 10 days after the debriefing concludes. In other words, a protester’s timeliness clock does not start ticking until the debriefing concludes.

Continue reading “FAR on the Chopping Block: Potential Impacts on Protests”

A Roadmap for Terminations for Convenience in the DOGE-Era

Elizabeth N. Jochum, Robyn N. Burrows, and Sara N. Gerber ●


The Department of Government Efficiency’s (“DOGE”) scrutiny of federal contracts has resulted in a spike in notices of termination for convenience. Given DOGE’s broad mandate to reduce federal spending, we expect a sustained increase in the use of terminations for convenience to end contracts the administration considers “wasteful” or not aligned with its priorities.

But while termination notices make one thing clear—the contract is over—it can leave contractors with questions about their rights and obligations.

What Is a Termination for Convenience and Can I Challenge It?

The right to terminate for convenience is included expressly in almost all government contracts—and is generally considered to be a government right even when not expressly included.[1] Terminations for convenience allow the federal government to unilaterally end a contract (or a portion of a contract) immediately and without alleging contractor fault. The government typically invokes a termination for convenience after determining the contract is no longer in its best interests, and this can occur for a wide variety of reasons, such as budget cuts, or changes in government priorities or project requirements. Typically, the government does not explain why it is terminating a contract for convenience.

Continue reading “A Roadmap for Terminations for Convenience in the DOGE-Era”

60-Second Sustains: TISTA Science and Technology Corporation

Elizabeth N. Jochum and David L. Bodner ●

Protest of: TISTA Science and Technology Corporation
B-422891.2; .3; .4

  • TISTA challenged the issuance of a task order by the National Institutes of Health to Tantus Technologies, alleging the agency engaged in unequal treatment of the offerors.
  • The Agency assessed a strength to the awardee for proposing to maintain a “warm bench” of candidates to meet potential surge staffing needs. On the other hand, it assessed a weakness to TISTA for proposing to maintain bench strength with a pool of pre-vetted candidates.
  • The Agency argued there was a distinction in the proposals in that the awardee’s “warm bench” was made up exclusively of existing employees, while TISTA’s would need to hire surge candidates.
  • The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) rejected the Agency’s argument, finding that both quotations provided for surge staffing with a mix of existing and yet-to-be-hired employees, and sustained the protester’s allegation of disparate treatment.
  • GAO similarly found unequal treatment in the Agency’s decision to assign a strength to the awardee for its use of a “master schedule,” when it did not assign a strength to the protester for proposing use of a “master tracker.”

60-Second Sustains: The Mission Essential Group

Elizabeth N. Jochum and David L. Bodner ●

The Mission Essential Group
B-422698.2

  • Mission Essential challenged a task order solicitation issued by the Air Force, alleging the lowest price, technically acceptable (“LPTA”) evaluation scheme violated DFARS 215.101-2-70.
  • The DFARS provision establishes eight criteria, each of which must be met in order for a solicitation to employ an LPTA methodology.
  • It also requires that agencies “avoid, to the maximum extent practicable,” the use of LPTA procedures for procurements of “knowledge-based professional services.”
  • Mission Essential alleged the Air Force failed to meet at least three of the eight criteria allowing for LPTA and that LPTA procedures must be avoided given the type of services sought.
  • GAO sustained the protest, recommending the Air Force revise the solicitation to comply with DFARS 215.101-2-70 and request revised proposals.

Blank Rome Attorneys Appointed to American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Section Leadership for the 2024–2025 Term

Blank Rome LLP is pleased to announce that eight attorneys from the firm’s nationally recognized Government Contracts group have been appointed to leadership roles in the American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Section for the 2024–2025 term.

Visit our website to learn more about their roles and the Section of Public Contract Law.

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%