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 | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
