1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |The Sun Has Not Set On Protests Of Civilian Agency Task Orders

The Sun Has Not Set On Protests Of Civilian Agency Task Orders

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.14.11

In Technatomy Corp. (June 14, 2011), GAO ruled that the sunset provision contained in the 2008 amendments to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act ("FASA") for GAO's civilian task order protest jurisdiction applied not only to the provisions granting GAO exclusive jurisdiction over protests of task order awards in excess of $10 million, but to the entirety of subsection 41 U.S.C.§ 253j(e), and, therefore, GAO's jurisdiction over protests of task or delivery orders essentially reverted to the jurisdiction that previously existed under CICA (pre-FASA), under which there is no jurisdictional distinction between protests of awards of contracts and of task orders. The net effect is that any task order award of any value pursuant to a civilian agency contract is subject to the protest jurisdiction of GAO and possibly of the Court of Federal Claims, to the extent that court agrees with GAO's ruling.

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