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 readingCategory Archives: GAO Bid Protests
GAO bid protest decisions, commentary on GAO bid protest regulations, and related topics.
GAO 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 readingWrong Place: GAO Weighs in on 8(a) Program GSA Schedule Eligibility under MAS 8(a) Pool and Finds that SBA Eligibility Finding had to be Challenged at SBA
The GSA instituted a program that would allow 8(a) Program participants to enter into an 8(a) pool for GSA schedules (AKA, GSA Multiple Award Schedule) called the MAS 8(a) Pool. This program would allow 8(a) GSA schedule holders to maintain their 8(a) eligibility for a limited time even after they had graduated from the 8(a) Program. GSA described it this way in 2023:
“MAS 8(a) pool contractors will be eligible for sole source awards for as long as they remain active in the 8(a) Program, and continue to qualify as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the sole source order, at the time of award. 8(a) pool contractors will continue to remain eligible for competitive set aside awards for up to five (5) years from the date of award, or until rerepresentation in accordance with FAR 19.301-2(b) (whichever is first), even after the contractor has exited the 8(a) Program.”
In this case, the agency requested a check on 8(a) eligibility, despite the existence of the MAS 8(a) Pool, and GAO was asked to decide if an agency had the discretion to check 8(a) eligibility, even if regulations did not require it.
As another point, The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) both provide oversight for federal procurements but over different areas. Generally, GAO reviews protests of agency compliance with federal procurement regulations and statutes and solicitation criteria, and SBA hears protests regarding the size and status of federal contractors for set-aside procurements. This can create, however, some confusion where their activities overlap. This is something that we have, over the years, addressed in other blog posts. Today, we look at a GAO protest where GAO and SBA crossed paths again and this MAS 8(a) Pool issue arose.
Continue reading