GAO Implements Changes to Bid Protest Process
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.06.18
On April 2, 2018, GAO published a final rule, effective May 1, 2018, implementing the long-awaited Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS) allowing for the electronic filing and documentation dissemination for protests. In addition to implementing EPDS, the final rule includes other changes to “streamline the bid protest process.”
Notable changes to GAO’s protest process as a result of the rule include the following:
- Implementation of the EPDS as the sole method for filing unclassified GAO protests.
- Instituting a $350 filing fee for all new protests.
- Clarifying that protests challenging solicitation improprieties that become known after the solicitation closes and without an amended closing date must be filed within 10 days of when the protester knew or should have known of the basis of protest.
- Clarifying the scope of GAO’s jurisdiction over the award of task/delivery orders and the propriety of an agency’s use of a non-procurement instrument to procure goods or services (e.g., other transaction authority (OTA)).
- Requiring redacted versions of protected documents only when requested by another party.
- Requiring an agency that overrides CICA’s automatic stay to notify GAO of the basis of the decision or provide a copy of the decision itself.
To read more, visit our blog post on the topic.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
