green
Positive treatment
1.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The McVey Company, Inc. v. United States
Plaintiff argues that, at the latest, “the contracting officer should have investigated the [organizational conflict of interest] risk and documented her judgment in relation to it.. .upon reviewing Forgentum’s quotation.” Id. at 9; see also id. at 23 (“[A] contracting officer may not simply ‘ignore and not evaluate known potential [organizational conflicts of interest] prior to award.’ ” (citing NetStar-1 Gov’t Consulting, Inc. v. United States (NetStar-1), 101 Fed.Cl. 511, 521 (2011), aff'd *407 per curiam, 473 Fed.Appx. 902 (Fed.Cir.2012) (unpublished))).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NETSTAR-1 GOVERNMENT CONSULTING, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES, and Alon, Inc.
v.
UNITED STATES, and Alon, Inc.
Nos. 2012-5023, 2012-5024.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Aug 9, 2012.
473 Fed. Appx. 902
William F. Savarino, Cohen Mohr, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Of counsel was John J. O’Brien., Daniel B. Volk, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant United States. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Donald E. Kinner, Assistant Director., Douglas L. Patín, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant Alon, Inc. Of counsel were Steven A. Pozefsky; and Aron Caraway Beezley, Saltman & Stevens, P.C., of Washington, DC.
Lourie, Newman, Rader.
Published
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.This Cause having been heard and considered, it is
Ordered and Adjudged:
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.