Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc.
U.S. Government Accountability Office · May 12, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- U.S. Government Accountability Office
- Record ID
- business-integra-technology-solutions-inc-2026-05-12
- Observed outcome
- Warning
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | The protester cited a decision as supporting the rule that agencies may not use unstated subfactors to mechanically score proposals. GAO found that no decision existed with the cited party name and B-number combination, and that the similarly numbered Apogee Engineering decision did not address unstated evaluation criteria, subfactors, or mechanical scoring. Outcome: Warning. GAO identified multiple inaccurate legal citations in Business Integra’s protest, including citations to non-existent or mismatched decisions. The protester attributed the errors to clerical mistakes, but GAO stated that the citations bore the hallmarks of unverified use of a large-language model or other AI tool. GAO denied the protest on the merits and declined to impose sanctions, while warning that future filings containing citations to non-existent authority could lead to sanctions.
The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Warning in U.S. Government Accountability Office. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Warning
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.