1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DoD Proposes Limitations & Prohibitions on Use of LPTA Source Selection Process

DoD Proposes Limitations & Prohibitions on Use of LPTA Source Selection Process

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.11.18

Implementing a Department of Defense (DoD) policy preference against the use of lowest priced technically-acceptable (LPTA) procurements that was codified in the National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) for fiscal year 2017 and 2018, last week, the DoD issued a proposed rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to reflect the limitations and prohibitions in the NDAA provisions. 

Of note, the proposed rule would add DFARS 215.101-2-70, which sets forth the eight scenarios under which LPTA source selection procedures can be used, such as when the proposed technical approaches will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offeror’s proposal versus a competing proposal. The proposed rule makes clear that the limitations and prohibitions (e.g., the prohibition against using, to the maximum extent possible, LPTA procurement for the acquisition of IT and cybersecurity services and systems engineering and technical engineering services) apply to several types of acquisitions including, but not limited to, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 procedures for negotiation, acquisitions for commercial items under FAR Part 12, and simplified acquisition procedures using FAR Part 13.

Contractors should be aware of these new restrictions and have until February 4, 2019 to submit comments to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

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....