A catch-22 is an impossible, no-win situation where you are caught between two conflicting requirements, and complying with one makes it impossible to comply with the other. When a bid protest turns on whether an agency’s instructions were clear or whether a contractor was put in a catch-22, the solicitation is often the best place to look for the answer. However, a recent GAO decision illustrates that not every difficult or unfavorable outcome constitutes a catch-22, and that sometimes the answer to a contractor’s problems is right in front of them.
Continue readingCategory Archives: GAO Bid Protests
GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
When Today Becomes the Next Business Day: GAO’s Strict Rules for the Timely Submission of Bid Protests to Solicitation Terms
What time does the day end? Most people would answer that a day ends at midnight. However, a recent GAO decision highlights that, for purposes of filing a pre-award bid protest with the GAO, the business day ends at 5:30 p.m. ET when the GAO closes its doors for the day. Confusingly, this can result in a protest that was technically filed on a Friday after 5:30 p.m. ET, not actually being filed until Monday, the next business day. A recent GAO decision explores this phenomenon and clarifies filing deadlines for pre-award bid protests challenging solicitation terms, especially in the case where an offer deadline is after GAO’s close of business.
Continue readingGAO Sustains Protest Due to Agency’s Inadequate Documentation and Unequal Evaluation of Offerors
As regular SmallGovCon readers surely know, federal agencies have a great deal of discretion when procuring products and services. Protesters are often facing an uphill battle in attempting to demonstrate an agency abused that discretion in making an award. This is because typically, so long as the agency properly documents its decision making process, sticks to the solicitation terms, and there is documentation in the record that reasonably supports the agency’s decision, GAO will rule in the agency’s favor. Nevertheless, there are occasions when the agency will apply evaluation criteria unevenly, or base its decision on facts or considerations that are not allowed under the Solicitation. This is precisely what happened in a recent GAO protest which resulted in a win for the protester, and serves as a great reminder for contractors as to what situations may result in a successful bid protest.
Continue readingFederal Circuit Refuses to Apply Stricter Injunctive Relief Test to GAO Stays
We have noted in past posts that, in some cases, it may make sense to protest a solicitation evaluation or award decision at GAO simply to get a stay on the award. This is because, if you meet certain deadlines, a stay of award and performance is automatically placed on the procurement for the duration of the protest. Now, there are circumstances in which an agency can override this stay, but the burden is on the agency to show such an override is necessary. The Federal Circuit confirmed this is the case in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, 172 F.4th 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2026), in which an agency tried to get the higher burden for a preliminary injunction placed on GAO protesters. This decision suggests that agencies may think more carefully about attempting overrides of stays going forward.
Continue readingGAO Recommends Practicing Mindfulness When Solicitation Terms Cover Multiple Evaluation Factors
Even if we don’t want to admit it, we all simply click “accept” on all those different terms and conditions for software, despite not actually reading the actual terms. GAO in a recent decision reminded agencies and contractors to not let that habit happen when you read the terms of a procurement. In that recent GAO decision, there was a long history of protests, which resulted in an amendment to the solicitation. At first glance, the amendment and proposal revision restrictions tied to it may have made sense, but upon protest, GAO found the limitations on proposal revisions were improper, due to the amendment impacting more than the one factor which was open for revisions.
Continue reading“In Scope” vs. “Out of Scope” Modifications: How GAO Explains The Difference
One of the perennially popular topics on SmallGovCon has been the question of what constitutes a modification to a contract that renders that modification “Out of Scope.” This post will explore a leading GAO decision that came out back in 2017, along with some recent updates on this same question.
An agency may modify a contract without having to deal with restrictions in the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), so long as the the modification is deemed “in scope.” An “out of scope” modification, on the other hand, is improper–and may be protested at GAO.
In a leading bid protest decision, GAO denied a protest challenging an agency’s modification of a contract where the modification was within scope and of a nature that competitors could have reasonably anticipated at the time of award. In its decision, GAO explained the difference between an in scope and out of scope modification, including the factors GAO will use to determine whether the modification is permissible.
Continue readingGAO Sustain: Failure to Acknowledge Solicitation Amendment was a Material Defect
Preparing and submitting a bid for a federal procurement requires strict compliance with the solicitation’s instructions. When a bidder fails to comply with these instructions (such as failing to acknowledge an amendment to the solicitation), the bidder may be surprised by the agency’s seemingly harsh decision to eliminate the bidder from award. But if the agency ignores the error and proceeds to award the contract to the bidder, the agency’s decision risks protest of the award from other bidders.
In Morrish-Wallace Constr. d/b/a Ryba Marine Constr. Co., B-423796.2 (Feb. 5, 2026), GAO examined whether an awardee’s failure to acknowledge an amendment to the RFQ constituted a minor informality that could be waived.
Continue reading