Cunningham v. Brumback

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, in some cases, the court may examine whether features of a proposal that are highly rated are similar to another proposal that is not similarly credited
• recognizing the discretion that is afforded to contracting officers in a best value procurement
• indicating “an agency’s ‘prerogative to change its mind’ ” (quoting Fort Carson Support Servs, v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. at 604)
• finding objection to the terms of solicitation as not in conformance with FAR was waived
• describing process of “scrutinizing the evaluations for objective inaccuracies or subjective inconsistencies”
• Because two offers were “essentially equal” the “lowest offered price was the determining factor for the award.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).