Attention To Small Business Subcontracting Plan Is No Small Matter
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 11.07.05
In Coastal Maritime Stevedoring, LLC (Sept. 22, 2005 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/296627.pdf), GAO found unreasonable the Source Selection Authority's decision to change the awardee's rating from unsatisfactory to satisfactory under the socioeconomic commitment factor when the awardee's small business subcontracting plan failed to address required elements of FAR 19.704 and otherwise neglected to comply with the solicitation's required objective for subcontracting to small businesses 10% of the total contract value. GAO also determined that the agency's price/technical tradeoff was flawed because it failed to take into account advantages in the protester's proposal that translated into quantifiable cost savings to the government.
Contacts
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).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
