FAR Council Introduces Limits on the Single-Offer Adequate Price Competition Exception
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.01.19
On June 12, 2019, the FAR Council issued a final rule amending the FAR to address an exception from certified cost or pricing data requirements when price is based on adequate competition. In particular, the final rule amends the definition of “adequate price competition” in FAR 15.403-1(c) for submission of certified cost or pricing data to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard so that the adequate price competition exception now applies only when “two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement.” This means that if only one offer is received, even if submitted with the expectation of competition, the exception no longer applies. For all other agencies, the exception still applies even when only one offer is received, provided there is a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible offerors would submit offers, or price analysis demonstrates that the proposed price is reasonable. Though this rule represents a change to the FAR, we note that a similar rule has existed in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement at 215.371-3 for a number of years.
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).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25



