Agency's Corrective Action Based Upon GAO Recommendation Reasonable
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.06.09
In ASRC Research & Tech. Solutions, LLC (Aug. 21, 2008), GAO determined that NASA conducted flawed technical and past performance evaluations and recommended a limited re-evaluation that ultimately led to a contract award to the protester (represented by C&M). The awardee in the first competition fought to turn the tables on ARTS in a subsequent protest before the CFC, but ARTS successfully defended the award in SP Systems, Inc. v. United States (Feb. 11, 2009), in which the Court found that, although NASA could have taken other corrective actions, NASA's decision to follow GAO's recommendation strictly was reasonable.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
