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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
