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.
As readers may recall, recently we posted about whether incumbents were entitled to bridge contracts when a contract was protested after award. The answer there was that incumbents were not entitled to a bridge contract during a protest of a follow-up award, and in fact the named awardee could even be given a separate bridge contract for that work during the time of the protest. Well, before that controversial “bridge” can even be crossed, there needs to be a solicitation. Incumbent contractors, in addition to thinking that bridge contracts should be guaranteed to them in a protest scenario, will often also think they are entitled to a heads-up from the agency about a solicitation being posted for the work they have been performing. While this may often happen, in Bramstedt Surgical Inc., B-424064 (Comp. Gen. Jan 28, 2026), a case decided mere weeks ago from this post, GAO held that incumbents are not required to receive any such notice.
In Bramstedt, the protester had provided, “surgical instrument preventative maintenance and repair services”, to the VA for many years. During that performance, the agency would place purchase orders, and at one point even issued the protester a bridge contract so that the agency could do an internal audit. During the protester’s performance the agency would email solicitation documents (such as an amendment) to the protester. After a bridge contract with the protester expired in April of 2024, the agency continued to purchase these services from the protester using a “government purchase card.” The protester in Bramstedt stated this card purchasing process occurred twice a week until early October 2025. Meanwhile in May of 2025, the agency began its process on a new competitive solicitation for this work but seemingly did not directly email or alert the protester to this process.
On May 7, 2025, a sources sought notice was posted on SAM.gov. The protester did not respond to that sources sought notice. Then on July 22, 2025, the agency posted a pre-solicitation notice on SAM.gov. Finally on August 21, 2025, the agency issued a solicitation for the work which the protester had been performing. The solicitation had a response due date of September 5, 2025. Offers were submitted on the solicitation and on October 1, 2025, award was made to a company other than the protester, as the protester did not submit an offer.
Consequently, on October 6, 2025, the protester’s delivery driver showed up to the VA facility to perform services, but was told by an agency employee that they, “were not supposed to give any more instruments or trays” to the protester because, “a contract had been signed with another company.” The protester then contacted the CO to figure out what was going on and the CO “expressed surprise that [protester] had not submitted a bid but stated that there was nothing he could do, adding that [protester] should have been monitoring SAM.gov.” The protest was then filed.
The protester argued that the agency improperly and unreasonably failed to provide notice of the opportunity for it to compete under the solicitation (in addition to an alternative argument about cancelling a purchase order which will not be discussed in this post).
The protester argued that, in addition to posting on SAM.gov, the agency should have taken “reasonable steps” to let it know as the incumbent contractor that there was a solicitation, as given their previous interactions (i.e., course of dealing) and good faith, such notice was expected. GAO plainly rejected the protester’s arguments.
GAO pointed to FAR 2.101 which “designates SAM.gov as the governmentwide point of entry (GPE)” for all business opportunities with the Federal government over $25,000. GAO also explained that posting the opportunity on SAM.gov is “constructive notice,” meaning that there is a “presumption of notice in law that cannot be rebutted” or that such notice “imputes knowledge to a party without regard to the party’s actual knowledge of the matter at issue.” In plain English: even if you didn’t know it was posted, the court will treat the posting of the solicitation on SAM as making you aware of the solicitation.
As to the protester’s argument that simply posting the solicitation was not enough to promote fair competition, GAO again emphatically strikes this assertion down. GAO candidly writes in its decision:
“Quite simply, it is not relevant whether, as the protester argues, it might have made sense, been fairer in some way, or otherwise been a reasonable business decision for the contracting officer to have provided actual, direct notice of the new solicitation to the performing incumbent, because the contracting officer satisfied the regulatory requirement to notify all potentially interested firms–including the protester–by posting the solicitation to SAM.gov, the GPE.”
Finally, as to there being a history of the agency giving the protester notice of opportunities, the GAO wrote that reliance on such previous dealings “has no bearing where, as here, the agency’s posting of the solicitation on SAM.gov provided the protester with constructive notice of the opportunity to compete and, as explained above, this presumption of notice cannot be rebutted.” Due to all of this, the GAO dismissed this protest.
Bramstedt is a cold reminder to all contractors, SAM.gov is your end-all be-all spot to find most procurement information and opportunities, (make sure to check out our Back to Basics Post on registering on SAM.gov, and remember that some procurements do use other means to provide notice). You cannot assume that because an agency in the past gave you notice of new procurements that it somehow creates a requirement for notices of new opportunities to always be sent to you. Once again, just because you are an incumbent, you don’t get special or preferential treatment. All contractors, new or old, must stay up to date on SAM.gov and its opportunities. As shown here, there is no wiggle room if you missed an opportunity you wanted to bid on or compete. So, make sure to keep SAM.gov bookmarked on whatever browsers you use, and make checking it a regular part of your workflow to prevent these types of issues, even for work or agencies you have a stellar history with, or else risk missing out completely on opportunities.
Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919.
Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.