Chance to Change Pricing Generally Required After Corrective Action
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.27.11
The GAO in Power Connector, Inc. (Aug. 15, 2011), reiterated that, when an agency changes a solicitation evaluation criteria in a material way as part of corrective action, it must allow offerors in the next round of proposals to alter their price – even when the change has no obvious relationship to pricing – because the offeror may have submitted a more competitive price had it known that its proposal would be less competitive in another evaluation area. In response to agency concerns about the protestor having an unfair advantage in the recompetition as a result of learning of other offerors’ pricing during its debriefing, GAO instructed that the proper remedy was to level the playing field by disclosing all prices to all offerors, rather than to forbid price changes.
For further analysis, click here for related blog post by James Peyster.
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
