green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
27.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 ·
…njaked claims, by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that ... findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.
at p. 660
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Crassociates, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
njaked claims, by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that ... findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Geo Group, Inc. v. United States
njaked claims, by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that ... findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Crassociates, Inc. v. United States
njaked claims, by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that ... findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rig Masters, Inc. v. United States
there generally is no obligation that a contracting agency conduct discussions where the rfp specifically instructs offerors of the agency's intent to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
KSEND v. United States
because this section does not provide specific guidance regarding what may constitute a conflict, the gao has found instructive the provisions of , which provide more specific conflict rules, albeit for government contractors
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Govwave, LLC v. United States
Sys., L.P. v. United States, 906 F.3d at 998 (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The Bionetics Corporation v. United States
Cir. 2018) (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crowley Government Services, Inc. v. United States
Cl. 500, 506 (2005); JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
22nd Century Technologies, Inc. v. United States
Cir. 2018) (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Safeguard Base Operations, LLC v. United States
Cir. 2018) (“Clarifications are not to be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially al- ter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, or other- wise revise the proposal.” (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dyncorp International LLC v. United States
Cl. 272, 293 (2007) (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mission1st Group, Inc. v. United States
Cir. 2018) (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mantech Advanced Systems International, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
Importantly, however, “‘[c]larifications are not to be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, or otherwise revise the proposal.’” Dell Fed’l Sys., L.P., 906 F.3d at 998 (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States
Joint Venture v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 624, 634 (2006); JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crowley Technical Management, Inc. v. United States
“Naked claims, by all appearances unsupported by anything in the *262 record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that ... findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bcpeabody Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
See, e.g., Orion Tech., Inc., v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2013) (upholding the contracting officer’s decision to reject a proposal lacking required price information); JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 662 (2002) (“Given the circumstances of this case — with literally dozens of fundamental deficiencies having been identified in JWK’s proposals — this court believes that the S[ouree] Selection] B[oard] did not err in concluding that the limited exchanges envisioned by FAR [§ ] 15.306(a) would serve absolutely no utility here.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Communication Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
As the Court stated in JWK International Corporation v. United States, “[i]n short, even assuming the existence of a conflict, plaintiff has not shown that ‘had it not been for the alleged error in the procurement process, there was a reasonable likelihood that [it] would have been awarded the contract.’ ” 52 Fed.Cl. at 658 (second alteration in original) (quoting Data Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
G4s Technology Cw Llc v. United States
Recovery, Inc. v. United States, which states: Clarifications are not to be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal or otherwise revise the proposal_ Discussions, on the other hand, occur when a contracting officer indicates or discusses with each offeror still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal that could be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. 64 Fed.Cl. 150, 162 (2005) (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. Unit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Plasan North America, Inc. v. United States
Research Co., LLC v. United States, 65 Fed.Cl. 500, 505-06 (2005) (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002)). (a) Past Performance—Experience Sub-factor Plaintiff maintains that its submission of more information, revising its past performance to include eighteen contracts/orders (AR 229-35, 288, 311), should have resulted in an increased score but it did not.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shapiro v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
Laid bare, petitioner’s arguments reflect little more than mere disagreement with the finding that petitioner failed to establish a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccination and the onset of the SLE. “‘Such naked claims,’” this court has stated, “ ‘by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.’ ” Doyle, 92 Fed.Cl. at 7 (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), aff'…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
360Training.com, Inc. v. United States
JAR at 13 (quoting JWK Int'l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002), aff'd 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shapiro v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
Laid bare, petitioner’s arguments reflect little more than mere disagreement with the finding that petitioner failed to establish a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccination and the onset of the SLE. “ ‘Such naked claims,’ ” this court has stated, “ ‘by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.’ ” Doyle, 92 Fed.Cl. at 7 (quoting JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), af…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chenega Management, LLC v. United States
Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), aff'd 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doyle ex rel. Doyle v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
“Such naked claims,” this court has stated in analogous circumstances, “by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Casciani v. Nesbitt
JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 663 (Fed.Cl.2002) (“conclusory allegations ... become no less conclusory by repetition”). 22 Plaintiff also repeatedly alleges that his neighbor Oster, who, in letters to Town officials and in person at Board meetings, opposed plaintiffs operation of a helicopter and construction of a landing pad, was biased against Italian Americans.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Savin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
“Such naked claims,” this court has stated in analogous circumstances, “by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Serco Inc. v. United States
Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2004); TRW, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 98 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (Fed.Cir. 1996); LaBarge Prods., Inc. v. West, 46 F.3d 1547, 1555 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (citing Burroughs Corp. v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 53 , 617 F.2d 590, 597-98 (1980)); EP Prods., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 220, 223 (2005), aff'd, 163 Fed.Appx. 892 (Fed.Cir.2006); JWK Int'l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 655 (2002), aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Westech International, Inc. v. United States
Thus, this court’s review of an agency’s “evaluations of an offeror’s ... past performance ... should be limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and complied with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.” JWK Int'l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002); see also Consol.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arinc Engineering Services, LLC v. United States
“Such naked claims,” this court often has stated, “by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003); see also Int’l Outsourcing Servs., 69 Fed.Cl. at 49-50; EP Prods., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 220, 226 (2005), aff'd, 163 Fed.Appx. 892 (Fed.Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Enterprise & Associates v. United States
Cf. JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 662 (2002) (finding, in the context of a negotiated procurement under 48 C.F.R. § 15 , that “with literally dozens of fundamental deficiencies having been identified in [plaintiffs] proposals ... [, defendant] did not err in concluding that the limited exchanges envisioned by [48 C.F.R. § ] 15.306(a) would serve absolutely no utility here.”). 3.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Risc Management Joint Venture v. United States
Consideration of Past Performance In reviewing an agency’s rating of past performance, this court should focus on whether “the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria[,] and compliant] with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Outsourcing Services, LLC v. United States
“Such naked claims,” this court often has stated, “by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002); see also E.P.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Four Points by Sheraton v. United States
As this court has noted: Plaintiff offers little more than mere disagreements with the contracting officer’s assessment of the adequacy of its oral presentation. ‘Such naked claims,’ this court has stated, ‘by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.’ EP Prods. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 220, 226 (2004) (citing JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002)); see Indus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
University Research Co. v. United States
Accordingly, the Court’s review of an agency’s “evaluations of an offeror’s ... past performance ... should be limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and complied with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Manson Constraction Co. v. United States
“Such naked claims,” this court has stated, “by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003) (table); see also Banknote Corp., 56 Fed.Cl. at 384 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Resource Recovery, Inc. v. United States
Discussions, on the other hand, occur when a contracting officer indicates or discusses with each offeror still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal that could be altered or explained to enhance materially the' proposal’s potential for award. 52 Fed.Cl. at 661 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
EP Productions, Inc. v. United States
Indeed, a “protester’s burden is particularly great in negotiated procurements because the contracting officer is entrusted with a relatively high degree of discretion, and greater still, where, as here, the procurement is a ‘best-value’ procurement.” Banknote Corp. of America, Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 377, 380 (2003), aff'd, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir.2004); see also TRW, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 98 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (Fed.Cir.1996); La-Barge Prods., Inc. v. West, 46 F.3d 1547, 1555 (Fed.Cir.1995) (citing Burroughs Corp. v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 53 , 617 F.2d 590, 597-98 (1980…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Management Systems, Inc. v. United States
This same argument was rejected in JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002), aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003) (unpubl.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Software Testing Solutions, Inc. v. United States
Cir.1995) (citing Burroughs Corp. v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 53 , 617 F.2d 590, 597-98 (1980)); JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 655 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vantage Associates, Inc. v. United States
“In light of this, various decisions hold that, in protests challenging an agency’s evaluations of an offeror’s technical proposal and past performance, review should be limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and complied with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.” JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States
See JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bannum, Inc. v. United States
See JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002) (review of bid protests “should be limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and complied with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements”), aff'd 56 Fed.Appx. 474 (Fed.Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bannum, Inc. v. United States
See JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002) (determining that “naked claims” of disagreement with evaluations “no matter how vigorous, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that the findings in question were the product of an irrational process and hence were arbitrary and capricious”).
cited
Cited "see"
Gulf Group, Inc. v. United States
See JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wackenhut Services, Inc. v. United States
See Gulf Group Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 338, 351 (2004) (when reviewing an agency’s “Past Performance” Evaluation, the court should accord, “the greatest deference possible ... to the agency”); see also JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002) (court review of agency “evaluations of an offeror’s ... past performance ... should be limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and complied with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
HWA, Inc. v. United States
Bliss, 77 F.3d at 449 ); see also, e.g., JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 659 (2002) (listing “whether the evaluation was ... consistent with the stated evaluation criteria” as one basis for review of agency decisions); cf United Enterprise & Assoc. v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 1, 26 (2006) (stating that GAO review should include “examin[ing] the record to ensure that the evaluation was ... in accordance with stated evaluation criteria”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Banknote Corp. of America, Inc. v. United States
See Carlson Wagonlit Travel, 2001 C.P.D. ¶ 49 at 2, 2001 WL 254317 (2001) (“an offeror’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably”); PEMCO World Air Servs., 2000 C.P.D. ¶ 71 at 9, 2000 WL 546803 (same); see also JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 650, 660 (2002), aff'd, 2003 WL 344100 (Fed.Cir.2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Cross
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Cross
No. 00-5138, 01-5003.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jun 6, 2002.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Judgment
PER CURIAM.This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.