SP Systems, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• “[P]ast performance evaluation ‘will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation or applicable statutes or regulations.’ ” (quoting Consolidated Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 617, 637 (2005))
• A “past performance evaluation ‘will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation or applicable statutes or regulations.’ ” (quoting Consol. Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. at 637)
• “If the GAO recommendation is ... plainly contrary to a statutory requirement, that decision is irrational and an agency action is not justifiably based upon it.” (citing Grunley Walsh Int’l, LLC v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 35, 44 (2007))
• A “past performance evaluation ‘will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation or applicable statutes or regulations.’” (quoting Consol. Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. at 637)
• “[P]ast performance evaluation ‘will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation or applicable statutes or regulations.’ ” (quoting Consolidated Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 617, 637 (2005))
• “In the rare instance where the agency considers a GAO decision to be so thoroughly wrong as to be irrational (or the court later concludes the GAO decision is irrational), then the agency is not justified in relying upon the decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).