1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Timeliness Rule Sinks Ferry’s Protest

New Timeliness Rule Sinks Ferry’s Protest

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.27.07

Navigating in previously uncharted territory before the Federal Circuit, a ferry operator’s protest against award of the National Park Service’s Alcatraz Island concession contract is sunk on the shoals of a new timeliness rule that “a party who has the opportunity to object to the terms of a government solicitation containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to the close of the bidding process waives its ability to raise the same objection afterwards in a § 1491(b) action in the Court of Federal Claims.” In Blue & Gold, Fleet, L.P. v. U.S., (June 26, 2007), the court viewed the protest as a challenge to the terms of the solicitation (i.e., omission of Service Contract Act requirements) and thus affirmed the dismissal of the post-award protest as untimely on diverse theories of waiver, patent ambiguity, laches, and equitable estoppel, coupled with an analogy to the GAO timeliness rules, despite the acknowledged fact that “the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) contains no time limit requiring a solicitation to be challenged before the close of bidding.”

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26

GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm

The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”...