Ct.Cl. 308, 314, 558 F.2d 1, 4 (1977). 3 . Defendant also requests that the court strike exhibits that plaintiff has attached to its complaint and motion for summaiy judgment. Def.’s Br. filed May 17, 2004, at 29-31. Attached to plaintiffs motion are exhibits 37, 38, 40, and 41, which are printouts from NIH’s website listing the positions of SSEB board members. Exhibit 42 is an e-mail exchange between the MEO design team co-chair and the consulting firm that conducted the training of SSEB members. Exhibit 39 is a copy of GAO protest decision, Global Solutions Network Inc., B-293336.2, U.S. Comp. Gen. (Apr. 13, 2004). Decisions from the GAO may be cited be either party as persuasive, albeit non-binding, authority. See AINS, Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1333, 1340 n. 5 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff has provided the court with a copy
holding that courts of appeals must review the statelaw determinations of district courts de novo  holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that gao determinations do not control courts jurisdictional analysis holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional