1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Size Matters: Past Performance Rating Not Supported by Small Task Orders

Size Matters: Past Performance Rating Not Supported by Small Task Orders

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.13.15

In sustaining the contractor's protest filed by C&M against the Air Force's $110 million award for F-15 support services, GAO held that the agency erred by (1) giving the awardee the highest past performance rating for prior delivery orders worth "only approximately 0.14 percent of the estimated value of the effort required by the RFP" and (2) failing to document how the awardee's other "$5.36 billion portfolio" bore any relevance to the services being solicited. In rejecting the agency's reliance upon tiny delivery orders and post hoc litigation arguments, GAO relied heavily upon its 2009 precedent in Health Net Fed. Services, LLC (also a C&M case), in which the agency attempted to defend its past performance evaluation based upon the awardee's general industry experience without any discussion of how that performance related to the services specified under the RFP.

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