P.E.N. v. M.N.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that urgent and compelling circumstances for performance of a new contract did not exist where incumbent contractor was able and willing to perform under a contract extension during the override period
• declaring override decision invalid because agency failed to consider confusion and cost involved if contract awardee continued performance and GAO sustained protest
• faulting agency for not considering the option of exercising the “changes” clause in a contract to add a new service
• declaring agency’s override of stay invalid and denying plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief as moot
• discussing, in a “best interests” case, how the agency’s consideration of consequences of abiding by an automatic stay influenced the court’s decision
• following PGBA and applying § 706(2)(A) standards to a “best interests” determination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).