Law Co. Building Associates v. Law

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a substantive provision of the RFP has “more than a negligible impact on the price, quantity, quality, or delivery of the subject of the bid”
• holding that a substantive provision of the RFP has “more than a negligible impact on the price, quantity, quality, or delivery of the subject of the bid”
• recognizing that “[a]geney technical evaluations, in particular, should be afforded a greater deference by the reviewing court.” (quoting Benchmade Knife Co. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 731, 735 (2007))
• holding that a substantive provision of the RFP is one that has “more than a negligible impact on the price, quantity, quality, or delivery of the subject of the bid”
• stating that the court will not overturn an agency’s determination of materiality unless it concludes that the determination was arbitrary and capricious
• noting that the past-performance evaluations of agencies are entitled to deference, and that the court will not second-guess those evaluations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).