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 | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
