Agency Can't Ignore Obvious Costs In Evaluation
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.18.05
While agencies are given latitude in establishing evaluation criteria, an agency cannot rationally fail to include costs it knows will be involved in the procurement. The Court of Federal Claims in Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 18, 2005) instructed that the agency unreasonably excluded from the evaluation plant shutdown costs it was obligated to pay the incumbent if it awarded to another company.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.22.24
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.18.24
GSA Clarifies Permissibility of Upfront Payments for Software-as-a-Service Offerings
