Daniel v. Lefevre

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the agency acted irrationally by “failing] to articulate a coherent and reasonable explanation” for its rating of plaintiffs proposal
• holding agency acted within its discretion in “not assign[ing] an adjectival rating to each selection criterion” in determining overall adjectival rating
• “[A]djectival ratings . . . are but guides to, and not substitutes for, intelligent decisionmaking.”
• objections to terms of agency synopsis seeking to identify top three qualified Architect-Engineer firms for possible contract negotiations were waived by failing to challenge on that basis prior to the evaluation
• consideration of additional information volunteered by offeror not reliance on unstated evaluation criteria

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).