Insight Systems Corp., and Centerscope Technologies, Inc. v. the United States 12-863c and
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
Pre-award bid protest; Cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record; Standard of review — Bannum; Proposals received by government mail server, but not forwarded to the next server in the government mail system, were covered by the Government Control exception to the “late is late” rule found in 48 C.F.R. § 52.212-l(f)(2)(i)(B); Plain meaning of regulation controls; Watter-son Constr.; Specific/general canon of construction; Contrary GAO decisions rejected; Injunction issued.
OPINION
ALLEGRA, Judge:
Coming before this court, with disturbing frequency, are bid protests that find…
2Cases cited82 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. TurketteSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Morton v. MancariSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
77 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Federal Acquisition Services Team, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Fcn, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Management & Training Corporation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Insight Systems Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.