States, 128 Ct.Cl. 489, 492, 121 F.Supp. 630 (1954)). Thus, [a protestor] must offer clear and convincing evidence that [the government] did not act in good faith in order to prevail on this issue. Am-Pro Protective Agency, 281 F.3d at 1239-40. Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d at 1364; see also Savantage Fin. Servs. v. United States, 595 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc. v. United States, 281 F.3d at 1239 (“The presumption that government officials act in good faith is nothing new to our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Knotts v. United States, 128 Ct.Cl. 489, 492, 121 F.Supp. 630 (1954) (stating ‘we start out with the presumption that the official acted in good faith’).”); Square One Armoring Serv., Inc., v. United States, 123 Fed.Cl. 309, 329 (2015) (<HOLDING>); Austin v. United States, 118 Fed.Cl. 776, 790
holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith holding that a plaintiff alleging that the government has acted in bad faith must offer wellnigh irrefragable proof in support of its claim holding  616d030 barred employees action where employee alleged the insurance carrier acted in bad faith in handling the claim holding that a bad faith claim is a tort