Section 809 Panel Recommends Five Changes to Bid Protests in DoD Procurements
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.19
As previously reported, the Section 809 Panel released the third and final volume of its report on January 15, 2019. Volume 3 contains several recommendations that, if implemented, would materially impact the bid protest process. These recommendations include:
- Rec. 35 – Institute new procedures for DoD’s acquisition of “readily available” goods and services, replacing current procedures for the acquisition of commercial items. The proposal would eliminate all pre-award protests, as well as post-award protests at GAO and COFC, for procurements of “readily available” items valued at less than $15 million. Agency level challenges would be limited to whether DoD had conducted adequate market research to confirm “readily available” status.
- Rec. 66 – Establish a “purpose statement” for protests.
- Rec. 67 – Eliminate follow-on protests at COFC after a GAO protest, and impose a 100-day deadline for the issuance of a decision on protests filed at COFC.
- Rec. 68 – Limit COFC and GAO protest jurisdiction to procurements greater than $75,000.
- Rec. 69 – For all required debriefings, provide a redacted Source Selection Decision Document and technical evaluation for the offeror requesting the debriefing.
The full report can be found here.
We will be providing further analysis of these and other issues related to the panel’s final volume on our blog shortly. Stay tuned for updates.
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
