Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc.—Birmingham v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that this court should not “introduce new requirements outside the scope of the RFP,” because this would exceed “the court’s scope of review” in a bid protest
• reversing the trial court’s upholding of a bid protest where the agency complied with the requirements of the solicitation and regulations
• discussing the APA “arbitrary and capricious” standard for reviewing an agency’s procurement decision
• contractor’s work in assisting the Air Force to explore alternative designs meets the “development and design” exception
• “We have considered [plaintiff’s] arguments regarding alleged [OCIs] . . . and we concur with the trial court’s decision on th[at] issue[].”
• “We have considered [plaintiff’s] arguments regarding alleged organizational conflicts of interest . . . and we concur with the trial court’s decision . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).