GAO Protest Jurisdiction Covers Concession Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.22.04
In Shields & Dean Concessions, Inc. (Feb. 23, 2004), GAO took jurisdiction over the protest of a concessions contract awarded by the National Parks Service ("NPS"), stating that, because the concession contract at issue involved the delivery of goods and services to the government, as well as certain groundskeeping and construction services, the contract was a "procurement" within the meaning of CICA, and, therefore, was within GAO's bid protest jurisdiction. Notwithstanding its reliance on CICA to assume jurisdiction, GAO noted that, pursuant to statute, for concession contracts NPS is not bound by the provisions of CICA and the FAR that govern the conduct of procurements, and GAO therefore reviewed the award decision to determine whether it was consistent with the specific statute and regulation governing NPS concession contract and the terms of the solicitation and otherwise reasonable, and sustained the protest.
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
