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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
