Insights

GAO’s recent dismissal of the protest in Tyonek Technical Innovations, LLC, B-424364, B-424364.2, June 30, 2026, carries an important lesson for government contractors: if you believe solicitation terms conflict with a statute or regulation, you must raise that challenge before proposals are due—not during discussions or afterwards.

It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.

As discussed in more detail here, the U.S. Department of War (DoW) recently issued a memorandum (Memo 26-P-1023, dated July 13, 2026) directing the immediate suspension of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Phase II requirements (Level I and II self assessments are still permitted). Significantly, the memo directs that “all pending and future CMMC implementation milestones across DoW solicitations and contracts are held in abeyance until further notice.” Moreover, the DoW issued a memorandum on implementing these requirements (available here), directing agencies to issue amendments removing CMMC Level 2 and 3 requirements from active solicitations “as soon as practicable.” Contractors should monitor the government’s compliance with this requirement and should be prepared, if needed, to file a bid protest to protect their rights.

September 22, 2025; 12:00pm-1:00pmDevelopments in Caselaw Impacting Small Business Gov Con IssuesSpeakers: Olivia Lynch, Zachary Schroeder, Issac Schabes, Cherie OwenCrowell & Moring will address recent decisions from the Small Business Administration’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, Government Accountability Office, and Court of Federal Claims covering a range of topics including but not limited to: challenges involving size and status based on ostensible subcontractor affiliation; protests of awards to mentor-protégé joint ventures based on questions regarding the mentor-protégé agreement and joint venture corporate governance documents; protests concerning the evaluation of joint venture capabilities and past performance; protests of the evaluation of small business participation plans; and application of the Rule of Two.

The federal government awards billions of dollars in grants annually to fund public service, support non-profits, drive research initiatives and fund programs for colleges and universities.  With the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the “Act”), the Federal Government is poised to launch $1.2 trillion into the economy, providing funding to commercial entities through federal grants over the next 5 years, which will impact the infrastructure of this country for the next generation.  Like government contracts, federal grants have their own myriad of regulatory requirements that each grant recipient must meet and which are flowed down to subrecipients and subcontractors.  

Crowell & Moring’s “All Things Protest” podcast keeps you up to date on major trends in bid protest litigation, key developments in high-profile cases, and best practices in state and federal procurement. In this episode, Crowell attorneys discuss their recent “Feature Comment,” published in The Government Contractor, discussing the recent Court of Federal Claims decision rejecting GAO’s key personnel notification rule.