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 | 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
