1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Implements Changes to Bid Protest Process

GAO Implements Changes to Bid Protest Process

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.06.18

On April 2, 2018, GAO published a final rule, effective May 1, 2018, implementing the long-awaited Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS) allowing for the electronic filing and documentation dissemination for protests.  In addition to implementing EPDS, the final rule includes other changes to “streamline the bid protest process.” 

Notable changes to GAO’s protest process as a result of the rule include the following:

  • Implementation of the EPDS as the sole method for filing unclassified GAO protests.
  • Instituting a $350 filing fee for all new protests.
  • Clarifying that protests challenging solicitation improprieties that become known after the solicitation closes and without an amended closing date must be filed within 10 days of when the protester knew or should have known of the basis of protest.
  • Clarifying the scope of GAO’s jurisdiction over the award of task/delivery orders and the propriety of an agency’s use of a non-procurement instrument to procure goods or services (e.g., other transaction authority (OTA)).
  • Requiring redacted versions of protected documents only when requested by another party.
  • Requiring an agency that overrides CICA’s automatic stay to notify GAO of the basis of the decision or provide a copy of the decision itself.

To read more, visit our blog post on the topic.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights