Legal Opinion
Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 5, 1989No. 20-105PublishedCited by 432 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge.
These are appeals from an order of the United States Claims Court permanently enjoining the Department of the Army (Army) from awarding a contract to the appellant Haz-Tad, Inc. (Haz-Tad). Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 16 Cl.Ct. 173 (1989). The contracting officer had held that Haz-Tad’s bid was not responsive, but the General Accounting Office (GAO) ruled to the contrary and recommended that the Army award the contract to Haz-Tad. When the Army stated it would follow that recommendation, Honeywell, Inc. (Honeywell), the second lowest bidder on the contract, filed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- M. Steinthal & Co., Inc. v. Robert J. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force, Pioneer Parachute Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
- John Reiner & Company, Individually and to the Use of Kurz & Root Company (Incorporated) v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- Wheelabrator Corp. v. ChafeeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
- Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
3Cited by432 opinions
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Centech Group, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Statistica, Inc. v. Warren G. Christopher, Secretary of State, and the Orkand Corporation, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- A & D Fire Protection, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Turner Const. Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
427 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.