Def.’s Mot. 14 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court understands that defendant intended to quote the July 8, 2011 letter, which requests offerors to submit a "formal proposal revision.” AR 342 (July 8, 2011 letter); cf. Oral Argument of June 27, 2012, Argument of Mr. Vincent de Paul Phillips at 11:47:16-18 (pointing to the July 8, 2011 letter’s request for a "formal proposal revision”). 12 . "Best and final offers” is the terminology used in FAR 15.611 (1992), the predecessor to FAR 15.307(b). See ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States, 55 Fed.Cl. 392, 402 (2003) ("The FAR provision governing final proposal revisions prior to the FAR Part 15 rewrite was FAR § 15.611.”); Spectrum Sci. & Software, Inc., B-282373, 99-1 CPD ¶ 114, 1999 WL 427408, at *2 (Comp.Gen. June 22, 1999) (<HOLDING>). FAR 15.611, titled "Best and final offers,”
recognizing the cause of action holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation recognizing cause of action recognizing that far 15611 was the predecessor to far 15307b holding that the potential harm caused to uocava voters far outweighed the burden placed upon the state because of the states legally mandated obligation to provide uocava voters the ability to vote