1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Protest Sustained Because Agency Unreasonably Evaluated Weaknesses In Protester's Proposal

Protest Sustained Because Agency Unreasonably Evaluated Weaknesses In Protester's Proposal

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.19.06

In Intercon Assocs., Inc. (Aug. 10, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298282.pdf), the GAO held that the GSA acted unreasonably and without adequate support in evaluating several weaknesses in the protester's proposal, tainting the agency's source selection decision. The GAO found that five out of the six weaknesses identified by GSA were unreasonable, either because the agency's evaluation was "factually incorrect" (e.g., GSA erroneously identified technical disadvantages in proposed software), "internally contradictory" (e.g., GSA downgraded proposal for certain technical features on which agency also commented favorably), "cryptic" (e.g., GSA criticized a software function for "look[ing] weird"), or otherwise "unreasonable" (e.g., GSA downgraded proposed software for having a limitation that was present in all offerors' products).

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