Information Sciences Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 2305 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 31 U.S.C. § 3551 · 41 U.S.C. § 405 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell · Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [SSA’s] decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment. The source selection decision shall be documented, and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented, that documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. The General Services Administration’s December 7, 2005 award of Contract No. GST00T05NSC0002 is hereby set aside. 2. If the General Services Administration would like to proceed with this procurement, it is hereby ordered to appoint a new Source Selection Authority to review the Proposals received in response to Request for Proposals No. TQN-04-RA-0001, pursuant to the Solicitation’s terms and conditions and applicable FAR regulations, and to select that offeror for award deemed to represent the best value to the procuring agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The SSA could have met the FAR requirement by stating: I agree with the Minority Report because of X, Y, Z. Instead, the SSA wrote, “The SSA ... agrees with the minority reports, and that the proposals received from ISC Corporation and Symplicity Corporation be considered acceptable.” AR 1197. The SSA’s reasons for relying on the Minority Report are not documented in the Administrative Record. Therefore the court has determined that the SSA violated FAR 15.308.”
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.