1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Clarifies Timeliness of Preaward Protests Challenging Solicitation Amendments

GAO Clarifies Timeliness of Preaward Protests Challenging Solicitation Amendments

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.01.20

In Computer World Services Corporation, GAO sustained a protest challenging the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard’s corrective action taken in response to an earlier sustained protest by CWS. In its original protest, CWS successfully challenged a task order award; in response, the agency informed offerors via e-mail that it intended to remove a limited price realism analysis from its evaluation, and requested that offerors revalidate their price quotes within two days. The agency did not, however, issue a formal solicitation amendment or provide offerors with an opportunity to submit revised quotes.

CWS challenged the announced corrective action ten days later, alleging that the agency had materially changed its evaluation methodology without providing an opportunity for proposal revisions, and that the agency’s accompanying abandonment of reliance on an Independent Government Estimate (IGE) for its price realism evaluation was unreasonable. As a threshold matter, GAO determined the protest was timely, because the agency’s request for validation did not constitute a proposal deadline, meaning its change in evaluation approach was subject to GAO’s 10-day “known or should have known” timeliness rule. GAO then determined that elimination of the price realism component of the evaluation constituted a material change to the RFQ, requiring the agency to solicit revised quotations.

With respect to CWS’ second challenge, that the agency should be required to develop a new IGE, GAO concluded the allegation was premature. GAO explained that CWS’ true concern related to success of the agency’s reevaluation, which could not be reviewed until it was actually conducted.

Bidders should closely monitor agency corrective action to assess new protest filing deadlines. Failure to timely challenge changes to evaluation methodology may prevent offerors from later arguing that those changes were improper.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....