Contradictory Technical And Cost Evaluations Don't Add Up
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.12.06
In Information Ventures, Inc. (Mar. 1, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2972762.pdf), GAO sustained the protest in part because the agency failed to reconcile the technical evaluation with the cost realism analysis. In this procurement, the agency supported the high technical scores awarded to the two offerors by finding that both offerors' technical proposals “contained more than adequate staff to accomplish tasks,” yet, at the same time, determined in the cost realism analysis that neither offeror had proposed sufficient staffing hours to perform the work.
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 | 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
Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.24.25
Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation
