Yonley v. Lavender

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “bare statement that the benefits of the [plaintiffs] proposal do not justify the higher price of the proposal does not adequately address the issue”
• finding no decisions in which FAR 15.304(b) was applied in the postaward bid protest context
• finding challenge to price evaluation scheme based on exclusion of transition costs waived
• “Having announced the relative weight of the non-price factors in the RFP, the government was not free to evaluate the proposals and award the MCI contract in accordance with another scheme, regardless of the reasonableness of that scheme.”
• permitting agency to choose between two courses of action that would remedy the harm found, and noting that “[w]hat course of action [the agency] choose to pursue after [the] contract award is cancelled ... is not for this court to decide.”
• “Whenever a procurement decision is without a rational basis or is based upon a clear violation of law, that decision must be set aside.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).