Bouquet v. Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a court considers a challenge to a past performance evaluation “the greatest deference possible is given to the agency”
• noting that the court did not permit discovery of internal agency communications because “the record already contained the final determinations of the relevant decisionmakers and the contemporaneous reasons they gave in support of [their] decisions”
• noting that agencies are afforded “broad discretion” in evaluating past performance
• stating “it was for the TET to determine whether contracts were of a similar magnitude” and upholding determination since only one of protestor’s ten submissions fell within dollar range illustrating relevance
• finding that even if technical evaluation team made a mistake in overlooking the different grade, they did not clearly err in assigning risk rating in light of this mistake, and error was of the variety of “small or immaterial errors” not sufficient to invalidate a procurement decision
• “Nor does the FAR ever require clarifications to be requested by agency officials.” (citing FAR 15.306(a))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).