Hill v. Austin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “several decisions in this court have recently refused to include in the administrative record documents previously filed by private litigants in GAO protests”
• noting that asserted harms to the government and the awardee were “of the [government’s own making” and thus did not weigh heavily in injunctive relief analysis
• suggesting that a contracting officer’s declarations before GAO should be viewed with a “healthy dose of skepticism” so as to not “frustrate effective judicial review under the APA standards”
• holding “that the combined impact of the [Agency procurement] errors encountered . . . clearly prejudiced plaintiff, since “[t]he correction of these errors 4 “Closing of Escrow shall occur Sixty (60
• finding that the court must review the record “as of the time of the decision,” and that “[a]ny post hoc rationales an agency provides for its decision are not to be considered”
• observing that “[t]he depth of an agency’s price analysis is a matter within the sound exercise of the agency’s discretion and [this court] will not disturb such an analysis unless it lacks a reasonable basis” (alterations in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).