Ambiguous Instructions Give Disqualified Offeror A Second Chance
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.12.07
The Court of Federal Claims in Heritage of Am., LLC v. U.S. (May 31, 2007) set aside a disqualification of an offeror when the solicitation instructions were unclear about the coverage and labor rates required in the multiple regions solicited, requiring a recompetition with unambiguous instructions. In the prior, related GAO protest, GAO had refused to consider this issue because it was "untimely," but Judge George Miller in this opinion joins the solid majority of the CFC judges holding that GAO timeliness requirements are inapplicable in court protests.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
