Rodriguez v. Claassen

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 [technical evaluation panel’s] responsibility is to consider the findings of the [technical evaluation team], but that the development of its consensus rating ... is arrived at independently by the voting members of the Panel”
• discussing Banknote Corp. of America v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2004)
• discussing the factors a court should consider in determining whether modification “materially departs” from the scope of the original procurement, which include: “(1) whether the modification is of a nature which potential offerors would reasonably have anticipated; and (2
• “We may allow supplementation of the administrative record in limited circumstances where the record is insufficient for the [c]ourt to render a decision.”
• “We may allow supplementation of the administrative record in limited circumstances where the record is insufficient for the [ejourt to render a decision.”
• “This argument, which is present in the Complaint but only addressed in general terms in the ‘conclusion’ of Plaintiff’s opening brief, has essentially been abandoned by [the plaintiff].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).