Clements v. Lampkin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the cancellation decision was within the court’s jurisdiction despite FASA
• finding that a protestor shows sufficient competitive injury if it loses a competitive advantage through the government’s decision to resolicit proposals
• stating that “bid protest plaintiffs attempting to avoid the evidentiary burden required to show bad faith should not be permitted to disguise such allegations so as to avoid the relevant burden of proof”
• applying AT & T in a protest alleging that a task order exceeded the scope of an ID/IQ contract
• declining to adjudicate a protest, even where the procurement violated a regulation establishing a dollar ceiling for noncompeted task orders
• “The cancellation of the [s]olicitation may be viewed as a discrete procurement decision and one which could have been the subject of a separate protest.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).