GAO Dismissal Emphasizes that Attempts to Resolve Concerns with Procuring Agency Do Not Extend the Time to File a Protest
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
Despite the FAR’s statement that parties should attempt to resolve concerns prior to a protest, such efforts do not extend the time for filing a protest.
Key takeaway #2
In the event of an untimely agency-level protest, contractors should consider whether a protest to the Court of Federal Claims is feasible and appropriate.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.30.25
GAO’s recent dismissal of a protest filed by A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc. provides an important reminder regarding the strict timeliness rules that apply to bid protests. Quoters were required to electronically submit quotations and A2A experienced difficulty doing so. After contract award was announced, A2A emailed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) stating that it had been unable to submit its quotation. Twenty days later, the VA responded, confirming that A2A’s quotation had not been received; A2A filed an agency-level protest the same day, which the VA dismissed as untimely. A2A then filed a GAO protest.
GAO concluded that A2A’s GAO protest was untimely because A2A’s underlying agency-level protest was untimely. Stressing that the protest was required to be filed within 10 days of when A2A learned that the agency’s server had rejected its quotation, GAO noted that, although FAR 33.103(b) encourages parties to use “best efforts to resolve concerns” before filing a protest, an attempt to address concerns “does not extend the time for filing an agency-level protest.”
GAO’s decision further highlights the perils of attempting to informally address concerns with an agency prior to filing a protest. Indeed, as we previously discussed here and here, communications with an agency (even if not intended as an agency-level protest) can sometimes create timeliness traps that accelerate the GAO protest deadline. Therefore, upon learning information that could serve as the basis of a protest, companies should promptly consult with experienced protest counsel to strategize regarding the best approach for raising the issue.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.30.25
On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the “U.S. Antitrust Agencies”) filed a Statement of Interest supporting thirteen states’ claims that asset managers violated antitrust and consumer protection law through their environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) activities. The Statement, which opposes the asset managers’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claims, indicates the federal antitrust agencies support antitrust theories favored by anti-ESG activists, which may lead to federal investigations and lawsuits based on such theories.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.28.25
Federal Environmental Justice Compliance: The 180-Degree Change
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.28.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
