1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO And SBA Disagree on Effect of Noncompliance With Subcontracting Limitation

GAO And SBA Disagree on Effect of Noncompliance With Subcontracting Limitation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.10.07

In TYBRIN Corp. (Mar. 13, 2007, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2983646.pdf), GAO sustained a protest of the Air Force's reinstatement of a contract award despite the Air Force's reliance on and compliance with the SBA's responsibility determination in favor of the awardee (which was based on the SBA's finding that the awardee, despite having not committed to do so in its proposal, would in fact comply with the RFP's limitation on the extent of subcontracting to large businesses). Despite the SBA's conclusion to the contrary, and the Air Force's reliance on that conclusion, GAO held that where an offeror's proposal fails to comply with a material terms of the solicitation (in this case, the limitation on subcontracting clause as set forth in FAR 52.219-14), the matter is one of the proposal's acceptability or responsiveness (which is reviewable by GAO) rather than the offeror's responsibility (which is solely within the purview of the SBA, if it involves a small business).

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)....

View All Insights