GAO Faults USTRANSCOM’s Past Performance Evaluation of Awardee’s “Miniscule” Past Work
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.03.17
In XPO Logistics Worldwide Gov’t Servs., LLC (released Mar. 21, 2017), in which C&M co-represented XPO, GAO sustained a protest challenging the awardee’s past performance rating, setting aside USTRANSCOM’s award of a $3B freight services contract. GAO found that the value of the awardee’s past efforts are extremely small relative to the value of the requirement, that the contemporaneous record did not explain the basis for the agency’s determination that these tiny past efforts were somewhat relevant under the solicitation, and that the agency’s post hoc reevaluation during the protest was unreasonable. GAO recommended that the agency reevaluate the awardee’s past performance and then make a new award decision.
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
