Janes 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 FAR 1.602-2 creates an enforceable right for bidders under the ‘violation of procurement regulations’ prong of this court’s bid protest jurisdiction
• holding that the government’s arbitrary cancellation of a solicitation would be a violation of regulation in connection with a procurement
• holding that the challenge to the lawfulness of the replacement procurement method, claiming that the agency failed to comply with the “Rule of Two,” was within the court’s jurisdiction despite FASA
• explaining that an important consideration for a procurement decision “may be apparent from the circumstances of the procurement”
• explaining that an important consideration for a procurement decision “may be apparent from the circumstances of the procurement”
• holding lost profits “constitute irreparable injury” because “the lost potential profits of bid protesters cannot be recovered in an action at law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).