Price Realism Requirement Must Be Stated to Allow Unacceptability Finding
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.25.15
In W.P. Tax & Accounting Group (Nov. 13, 2015), GAO reminded agencies that, in fixed-price procurements, below-cost pricing is not inherently improper and cannot serve as the basis for a technical unacceptability finding when the solicitation does not provide for a price realism evaluation. Because the solicitation in W.P. said nothing about a price realism evaluation, GAO overturned the agency's rejection of the low-priced vendor's quotation as technically unacceptable and recommended that the agency either reevaluate the vendor's quotation against the stated evaluation criteria or amend the solicitation to provide for a price realism evaluation.
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
