1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Attribution of Affiliate Past Performance Improper Without Proposed Meaningful Involvement in Performance

Attribution of Affiliate Past Performance Improper Without Proposed Meaningful Involvement in Performance

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.11.17

In a recent protest decision, Language Select LLP, dba United Language Group (released Dec. 1, 2017), GAO sustained a protest of a Federal Supply Schedule blanket purchase agreement by the Social Security Administration for worldwide telephone interpreter services because the agency improperly credited the awardee with the experience and past performance of a subsidiary division based on identification of the division on the awardee’s stationary and in its FSS contract, even though the awardee’s proposal made no mention of the division’s resources nor any meaningful involvement in the awardee’s performance under the BPA, holding that common management is insufficient to support awarding past performance credit for an affiliate. GAO also sustained on the bases that the agency held unequal discussions with the awardee and the agency failed to provide (and document) a rational basis for discounting the significance of the awardee’s recent termination for cause on a similar contract.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....