Awardee's Reliance on Incumbent Employee Who Had Never Been Contacted Constitutes a Material Misrepresentation of Proposed Staff
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.07.20
In T3I Sols., LLC, GAO sustained a post-award protest challenging an Air Force award for courseware and training services finding that the awardee materially misrepresented its available workforce by proposing an incumbent employee without contacting that employee in advance of proposal submission or obtaining permission to include him as part of the awardee’s proposed team. The agency relied on the awardee’s representations regarding this employee and his qualifications in finding the awardee technically acceptable. GAO rejected the argument that there was no misrepresentation because the solicitation did not require commitment letters or employee representations. GAO further explained that the awardee’s “hope or belief” that it would be able to offer incumbent employees was not sufficient to represent commitment without more.
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
