October 2019 Bid Protest Round-Up

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Government Contracts Insights

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Government Contracts Insights

[author: Victoria Dalcourt Angle]

This installment of our monthly bid protest Law360 spotlight examines three protest decisions released in October 2019. In the first decision, Akira Technologies, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 19-1160C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 10, 2019), the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to review task order modifications. In the second decision, American Relocation Connections, LLC, v. United States, No. 2019-1245 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified the difference between the prejudice needed for standing to protest and the prejudice needed for a successful protest on the merits. In the third decision, Team Wendy, LLC, B-417700.2, Oct. 16, 2019 CPD ¶ ___, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) clarified its limited authority to review bid protests involving the AbilityOne procurement list.

Akira Technologies, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 19-1160C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 10, 2019).

This protest concerned task orders issued under a multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) prohibits the COFC from hearing protests concerning the issuance of task orders. The protester attempted to circumvent this jurisdictional bar by arguing that it was not protesting the issuance of a task order, but a task order modification.


The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) awarded contracts to Akira and C-HIT under SPARC, a multiple award IDIQ contract to modernize CMS identity management systems and to migrate CMS applications to a cloud-based environment. Both Akira and C-HIT could compete for task orders under SPARC. CMS awarded one maintenance task order to C-HIT. Under the task order, C-HIT was required to maintain CMS’s old platform. CMS also issued a migration task order to Akira. Under this task order, Akira would be responsible for migrating CMS’ applications to the new platform.

After contract performance had begun, CMS decided that it would not exercise the option years on Akira’s migration task order and instead modified C-HIT’s task order to include the necessary migration services.

Akira filed a post-award bid protest challenging CMS’s sole-source award decision. CMS moved to dismiss Akira’s protest for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that FASA bars the court from hearing protests in connection with the issuance of a task order, except on the grounds that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the IDIQ contract. Akira attempted to circumvent the court’s lack of jurisdiction by arguing that it was not protesting the award of the task order, but instead was seeking review of CMS’s task order modification.


The court concluded that “[a] protest of a task order modification to acquire additional services directly connected to the services provided in a previously issued task order that does not otherwise increase the scope, period or the maximum amount of the IDIQ contract is a protest ‘in connection with the issuance of a task order.’” Therefore, the court granted CMS’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

First, the court explained that the FAR does not distinguish between new task orders and modifications of task orders. Here, CMS used a task order modification to order additional services within the scope of the established IDIQ contract. The court rejected Akira’s argument that a task order modification was different enough from a task order to not fall under the bar.

The court further explained that even if a task order modification for additional services is not a task order, Akira’s protest to the task order modification at issue is a protest made in connection with the maintenance task order originally issued to C-HIT. The modification was directly related to C-HIT’s original maintenance task order work. The fact that CMS later ordered additional migration services through the task order modification does not defeat FASA’s jurisdictional bar for protests made “in connection with” the issuance of a task order. Thus, the protest is barred under the plain terms of FASA.

Takeaway: The COFC Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Protests Concerning Task Order Modifications

The Court’s decision is an important reminder that FASA bars the COFC from hearing protests made in connection with the issuance of task orders. Contractors should note that the Court does not make a distinction between task orders and task order modifications in assessing its jurisdiction under FASA. The legislative intent behind FASA was to allow agencies to issue task orders under IDIQ contracts without worrying about protest delays, and subsequent decisions have demonstrated that FASA bars protests over procurement decisions connected to task orders. The court, therefore, concluded that FASA’s protest bar for any protest “in connection with” the issuance of a task order should be interpreted to include protests concerning task order modifications.

American Relocation Connections, LLC, v. United States, No. 2019-1245 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2019).

American Relocation Connections, LLC (ARC) filed a pre-award bid protest arguing that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) violated Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations by failing to consult with the SBA during its market research for a solicitation for the procurement of employee relocation services. The Federal Circuit affirmed the COFC’s decision dismissing the protest because ARC could not show that it was prejudiced by CBP’s failure to consult with the SBA.


SBA regulations require that agencies setting aside orders placed against multiple award contracts for small business concerns under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 “conduct market research to determine the type and extent of foreseeable small business participation in the acquisition.” 13 C.F.R. § 125.2(c)(2). The regulations require agencies to consult with the SBA during their market research.

The CBP had a 2014 contract for employee relocation services that had been set aside for small businesses under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). The CBP decided to re-compete its employee relocation services contract under a different NAICS code. In preparation for the re-compete, the CBP conducted market research to determine whether the new solicitation should be set aside for small businesses. Its research found that only one certified small business was available to compete under the assigned NAICS code. Because there was not enough small business vendors to meet the competition threshold, the CBP issued its request for quotations (RFQ) without restricting the procurement to small businesses.

ARC questioned the agency’s decision not to set aside the RFQ for small businesses. The agency responded that it had changed NAICS codes for the re-compete, and stated that under the new NAICS code ARC was designated as a large business. The CBP added that, even if ARC were a small business under the applicable NAICS code, there were not enough certified small businesses to meet the competition threshold.

ARC initially filed a protest with the GAO. The GAO concluded that the decision to set aside orders for small businesses was within the agency’s discretion and dismissed the protest. ARC then filed a pre-award bid protest with the COFC, arguing that that CBP failed to set aside the RFQ for small businesses and failed to consult with the SBA during its market research, as required by 13 C.F.R. § 125.2(c)(2). The COFC found that ARC was not prejudiced by the CBP’s failure to consult with the SBA during its market research because, even if CBP had consulted with the SBA, there would not have been enough small businesses to meet the competition threshold. Therefore, the COFC granted the government’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and dismissed ARC’s protest. ARC appealed the COFC’s dismissal of its protest to the Federal Circuit.


On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the COFC’s finding that ARC could not show that it was prejudiced by CBP’s failure to consult with the SBA during its market research.

First, the Federal Circuit rejected ARC’s argument that it only needed to establish standing to protest the RFQ to show that CBP’s failure to consult with the SBA was prejudicial error on the merits. The Court explained that there is a difference between whether a protester has alleged an injury-in-fact (or prejudice) to establish Article III standing and whether a protester can prove prejudicial error on the merits:

To establish standing in a bid protest case, the protestor must show that it is an ‘interested party’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), ‘which . . . imposes more stringent standing requirements than Article III.’ Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Under § 1491(b)(1), a party must show that it ‘(1) is an actual or prospective bidder and (2) possess[es] the requisite direct economic interest.” Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In a post-award bid protest, the prospective bidder ‘must show that there was a ‘substantial chance’ it would have received the contract award but for the alleged error in the procurement process.’ Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In a pre-award bid protest, however, a prospective bidder need only allege a ‘non-trivial competitive injury which can be addressed by judicial relief.’ Weeks, 575 F.3d at 1363.

In this case, ARC claimed that CBP failed to comply with SBA regulations requiring agencies to consult with the SBA during market research. ARC further alleged that if the agency had consulted with the SBA, CBP would have set aside the RFQ for small businesses. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that if ARC were to succeed on the merits of its claim, and if CBP re‑issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside, then ARC would be in a better competitive position to win the contract. However, while ARC may have suffered a non-trivial competitive injury and, thus, had standing to challenge the RFQ, this did not necessarily mean that it had shown that CBP’s failure to consult with the SBA was prejudicial error on the merits.

In order to show prejudicial error on the merits, the Federal Circuit explained that “ARC must ‘show a significant, prejudicial error in the procurement process,’ meaning it must show that there is a greater-than-insignificant chance that CBP would have issued the 2018 RFQ as a set-aside for small businesses” had it not failed to consult with the SBA during market research. The Federal Circuit stated that “the record shows that even if CBP had consulted with the SBA during its market research, it would not have issued the 2018 RFQ as a small business set-aside because there were not enough qualifying small businesses to compete under the applicable NAICS code.” Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the COFC’s dismissal of ARC’s protest.

Takeaway: Always Consider Prejudice

This case serves as a warning to all potential protesters to always think about prejudice. As the Court pointed out, many bid protest cases allow discussions of prejudice and standing to blend together, but that does not mean that satisfying § 1491(b)(1)’s standing requirements necessarily established that any error committed by the agency was prejudicial error on the merits. In order to succeed, a protester must always demonstrate that the procuring agency’s mistake was not just a harmless error and that it was prejudiced by the agency’s actions.

Team Wendy, LLC, B-417700.2, Oct. 16, 2019 2019 CPD ¶ ___.

This protest concerned an item on the AbilityOne Commission’s procurement list. The AbilityOne Commission works with nonprofit agencies to provide employment opportunities for people who are blind or have significant disabilities in the manufacture and delivery of supplies and services to the Federal Government. The Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act authorizes the AbilityOne Commission to maintain a procurement list of supplies and services provided by qualified nonprofit agencies that train and employ people with disabilities. AbilityOne’s procurement list is a mandatory source for federal agencies, and the JWOD Act authorizes agencies to engage in noncompetitive procurements for supplies and services on the list. Nonprofit agencies, such as the National Industries for the Blind (NIB), also help administer the AbilityOne program. For example, the NIB has the ability to recommend to the AbilityOne Commission whether to add a product to the list.


The procurement at issue in this protest concerned helmet pad inserts used in the U.S. Marine Corps’ enhanced combat helmets (ECH). The pad inserts are on the AbilityOne procurement list; therefore, under the JWOD Act, the NIB procurement list is the mandatory source for the pad inserts.

The Marine Corps issued a request for proposals (RFP) for ECHs. The RFP stated that the NIB was the mandatory source for the pad inserts. However, the Marine Corps awarded the contract to Gentex, Inc., and issued a notice of a proposed sole-source award for Gentex’s “Lux Pucks” pad inserts, even though Gentex’s Lux Pucks were not on the AbilityOne procurement list. Team Wendy, LLC, a small business, was previously selected by the AbilityOne Commission to provide the helmet pad inserts listed on the procurement list. The specific pad insert that Team Wendy produced met the requirements of the Corps’ purchase description. Team Wendy challenged the Marine Corps’ sole-source award in a GAO protest. The protest alleged, among other things, that the proposed award was an improper attempt to circumvent the JWOD Act’s mandate to purchase through the AbilityOne program.

The Marine Corps took corrective action and advised the GAO that it had canceled the notice of intent and had not awarded a contract pursuant to the notice. Therefore, the GAO dismissed the protest as academic.

After its initial protest was dismissed, Team Wendy learned that the Corps had requested that NIB work with Gentex to add the Lux Pucks to the procurement list.

In its second protest before the GAO, Team Wendy argued that the Corps was still attempting to make an improper sole-source award to Gentex. Team Wendy alleged: (1) the Corps improperly requested that NIB recommend to the AbilityOne Commission that Gentex’s Lux Pucks pad inserts be added to the procurement list, (2) the agency attempted to improperly modify the helmet contract’s requirements for pad inserts to accommodate Gentex’s Lux Pucks, and (3) the Corps failed to implement the corrective action it committed to undertake in response to Team Wendy’s initial protest.


The GAO held that Team Wendy’s protest grounds regarding the AbilityOne program were matters that the GAO does not review. The Office explained: “GAO will not consider protests challenging the AbilityOne Commission’s determination regarding items to be included on the procurement list, as such determinations are within the exclusive authority vested in the Commission to establish and maintain the list in accordance with the overall purpose of the JWOD Act.”

The GAO concluded that “[a] decision by NIB to propose a Gentex pad insert for addition to the procurement list” is not the type of matter it would review. “Similarly, a decision by the AbilityOne Commission to accept a recommendation by NIB regarding the addition of a product to the procurement list is not a matter our Office will review” because “they are matters committed to the discretion to the AbilityOne Commission” and its nonprofit partners like NIB.

Team Wendy asserted that the GAO should review its protest “because it does not challenge NIB’s discretion to propose the addition of items to the procurement list.” Instead, the protester alleged that the procuring agency engaged in improper exchanges with the NIB by requesting the addition of Gentex’s pad inserts to the AbilityOne procurement list and argued that the Corps’ “‘ongoing procurement actions constitute an improper use of the AbilityOne program’ to enable the agency to make a sole-source award to Gentex for pad inserts.”

The GAO dismissed this argument, explaining: “[f]or purposes of determining whether our Office will review a challenge concerning the addition of a product to the AbilityOne procurement list, we see no difference between an agency’s request to add a product and the AbilityOne Commission’s review of that request.” The GAO concluded that “these matters are either specifically authorized for procuring agencies or committed to the discretion of the AbilityOne Commission under the JWOD Act and its implementing regulations.”

Takeaway: The GAO’s Decision Clarifies its Limited Review of Protests Involving the AbilityOne Procurement List

Contractors should take notice of GAO’s limited authority to review bid protests involving AbilityOne procurements. The GAO’s decision dismissing Team Wendy’s protest demonstrates the Office’s high degree of deference to the AbilityOne Commission’s determinations regarding goods and services to be added to the AbilityOne procurement list. This deference is warranted because such determinations are “within the exclusive authority” vested in the AbilityOne Commission “to establish and maintain” the AbilityOne procurement list. As a result, the GAO’s review of protests involving the AbilityOne procurement list is limited to “protests challenging a procuring agency’s actions in the context of the JWOD Act and its implementing regulations.” For instance, the GAO stated that it would “review whether a procuring agency has met its obligation to procure products from the procurement list or is improperly procuring products that are not on the procurement list.”

*Roke Iko contributed to this blog post. Roke is a full-time law student at Georgetown Law and a Law Clerk with Morrison & Foerster’s government contracts practice group.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP - Government Contracts Insights | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Government Contracts Insights

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Government Contracts Insights on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.