DoD Advances Proposed Rule on Enhanced Debriefings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.24.21
On May 20, 2021, the FAR Council issued a proposed Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rule on post-award debriefings that largely codifies—and in a number of ways bolsters—the existing enhanced post-award debriefing rules established by the Department of Defense’s (DoD) March 22, 2018 Class Deviation on Enhanced Postaward Debriefing Rights. The proposed rule requires that the awarding agency provide an oral or written debriefing, when requested, for all contracts, task orders, and delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million. The rule further augments the DFARS clause on DoD debriefings, requiring (1) debriefings to include a redacted version of the source selection decision document (SSDD) for all awards in excess of $100 million; and (2) the option for a small business or nontraditional defense contractor to request a redacted version of the SSDD for contract awards between $10 million and $100 million. And as with DoD’s Class Deviation, if an offeror submits additional questions in response to the initial debriefing within two business days of being debriefed, the debriefing shall not close until the agency responds to those questions. Under those circumstances, the protester’s clock for filing a protest at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (including the five-day window in which to file and obtain the Competition in Contracting Act’s automatic stay of performance) does not begin to run until such time as the agency provides its response. If no questions are posed, the protest timelines are unchanged.
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
