Post Hoc Explanation Inadequate To Save Unreasonable Price Evaluation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.15.08
In Joint Venture Penauille/BMAR & Associates, LLC (May 12, 2008, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311200.pdf), GAO sustained a challenge to the Navy's price evaluation, when, in a fixed-procurement, the agency unreasonably rejected the protester's proposal on the grounds that it offered low indefinite quantity pricing for certain minor work and the record contained no evidence that the pricing actually presented any risk to performance. GAO rejected the agency's post hoc justification that the low pricing presented performance risk because the contractor allegedly had the option to reject work if not sufficiently profitable, finding no support for this assertion in the record and nothing in the RFP that permitted the winning contractor to reject orders for the subject indefinite quantity work.
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
