Jwk International Corporation v. United States Ltm’s Empirical Analysis
279 F.3d 985 · 2002
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Bannum, Inc. v. United States (2005), Banknote Corp. of America, Inc. v. United States (2004)
7 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States · In re First National Bank of Boston · T & M Distributors, Inc. v. United States · Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because both cost and non-cost factors must be considered and the agency has full discretion to rank the importance of the factors, a downward cost adjustment may not always affect the award. Therefore, cost is not always material, and does not automatically mandate discussions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the absence of an alleged error, there must be a “substantial chance” that JWK would have received the award. Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577 , 1581 (Fed.Cir.1996). JWK argues that if the contracting officer had entered into cost discussions and it had been given the opportunity to offer cost caps on its proposed labor rate escalation, then it could have bid a lower cost and been awarded the contract. But cost was the least important criterion, and even with the cost realism adjustment, JWK’s bid was still lower than LTM’s. It was more important that JWK received lower ratings in the technical and management areas than LTM, because the contracting officer decided that LTM’s superiority in those areas outweighed the marginal cost difference between the two. That ivas a permissible judgment under the source selection regulation, FAR § 15.308, 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 (2001).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.