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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
