Price Realism Requirement Must Be Stated to Allow Unacceptability Finding
Client Alert | less than 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 | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
FedRAMP Solicits Public Comment on Overhaul to Incident Communications Procedures
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.14.26
