Accurate Historical Data Yields Negligent Estimate
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.17
In Agility Def. & Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. United States (Feb. 6, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the government’s volume estimate in a requirements-contract solicitation cannot rely solely on historical workloads when the government expects conditions to change going forward. FAR 16.503 requires solicitations for requirements contracts to include a “realistic estimate of total quantity” based on “the most current information available.” Reversing a decision from the Court of Federal Claims, the CAFC revived the contractor’s negligent-estimate claim, holding that the government failed to comply with FAR 16.503 when its estimate relied on historical data rather than the agency’s actual expectation that changing conditions would create a surge in requirements above and beyond the historical workloads.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
