1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Protest Jurisdiction Covers Concession Contracts

GAO Protest Jurisdiction Covers Concession Contracts

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.22.04

In Shields & Dean Concessions, Inc. (Feb. 23, 2004), GAO took jurisdiction over the protest of a concessions contract awarded by the National Parks Service ("NPS"), stating that, because the concession contract at issue involved the delivery of goods and services to the government, as well as certain groundskeeping and construction services, the contract was a "procurement" within the meaning of CICA, and, therefore, was within GAO's bid protest jurisdiction. Notwithstanding its reliance on CICA to assume jurisdiction, GAO noted that, pursuant to statute, for concession contracts NPS is not bound by the provisions of CICA and the FAR that govern the conduct of procurements, and GAO therefore reviewed the award decision to determine whether it was consistent with the specific statute and regulation governing NPS concession contract and the terms of the solicitation and otherwise reasonable, and sustained the protest.

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