1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Rejects Navy’s Blind-Eye Approach to Awardee’s Whitewash of Adverse Performance Information

GAO Rejects Navy’s Blind-Eye Approach to Awardee’s Whitewash of Adverse Performance Information

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.20.19

In a recent decision, Qi Tech, LLC, GAO sustained (again) a post-award protest challenging the Navy’s technical evaluation and award decision in a “long and contentious” procurement for administrative and clerical support services for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. Under the most important factor, the solicitation required the Navy to evaluate offerors’ plans and historical metrics for recruitment and retention of Service Contract Act (SCA) covered personnel. In its earlier evaluation, the agency had assigned a significant weakness for the awardee’s “high turnover rate” of 32% on the incumbent contract, but the agency’s final evaluation removed the significant weakness because the awardee’s final proposal revision “removed all verbiage” related to the incumbent turnover rate and substituted a 17% “average” turnover rate across multiple contracts. GAO found the agency’s evaluation unreasonable where it ignored the known, undisputed, and unchanged historical performance data simply because the awardee removed the language from its proposal.

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