Misleading Discussions Can Be With Awardee
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.19.06
In Advanced Systems Development, Inc. (Sept. 19, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298411.pdf), the GAO held that the agency improperly tipped the tables when it incorrectly advised the future awardee in discussions that one portion of its price violated the solicitation's price target and never disclosed that the excess was caused at least in part by an upward adjustment the agency had made to compensate for an error in another part of the awardee's pricing proposal. In response to this incorrect and incomplete information provided during discussions, the offeror lowered its final price below that of the competition, including the protestor, who prevailed on the theory that the agency's discussions with the awardee were not meaningful.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 10 min read | 03.19.26
[1] In a recent development, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are not excluded from patentability due to being a computer program “as such.” In doing so, the Court set out the framework of a new test for the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to use when evaluating the patentability of computer. The ruling breaks down barriers to the patenting of AI algorithms in the UK and paves the way for a wider change in the UK IPO’s approach to assessing excluded subject matter.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.19.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.18.26
CFTC Takes Additional Steps Toward Prediction Market Regulation: What You Need to Know
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.18.26
