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 readingCategory Archives: GAO Bid Protests
GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
Federal 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 readingGAO: No Notice of New Opportunity Needed for Incumbents
Often Incumbents on a contract feel that the agency owes them some notice on when a new procurement for the work they are performing is published. While this may happen in practice, it is yet another occurrence in Federal contracting that, while common, is not a requirement. GAO recently examined whether an incumbent in frequent contact with and in current performance with an agency should have been given direct notice that the work it had been performing was being re-solicited. Plainly put, GAO held that no special individualized notice was required to be sent to the incumbent, that there was to be a solicitation posted.
Continue readingGAO Checks the Math: An Agency’s Failure to Document OCI and Best-Value Decision Results in Sustained Protest
In the procurement process, agencies are afforded a significant amount of discretion when selecting an awardee. When an agency’s decision is protested, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) focuses primarily on the reasonableness of the agency’s conclusions. But when an agency fails to show its rationale behind a decision, GAO is unable to conclude that the agency’s decision was reasonable.
In a recent GAO decision, Castro & Company, B-423689 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 13, 2025), GAO sustained a protest on three grounds, all of which involved an agency’s lack of documentation.
Continue reading