Insights

A recent U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision serves as an important reminder that when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denies a protest, this is not necessarily the end of the road. Often, contractors retain the right to file a new protest at the COFC, which conducts its own de novo review of the procurement record. This so-called “second bite at the apple” protest is a powerful tool as the COFC’s recent decision in Chugach Logistics & Facility Services JV, LLC v. USA makes clear.

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.

In Utech, Inc. v. United States, No. 24-1586 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that in most cases, a pre-award protest must be filed before the proposal submission deadline to avoid the Blue & Gold waiver rule.  This decision, while nonprecedential, is in line with U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) precedent, which has long held that pre-award protests must be filed before the proposal submission deadline.

A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision dismissing three pre-award protests as untimely highlights an important procedural trap for would-be protesters. In Oready, LLC, GAO dismissed three protests filed one business day too late, even though they were submitted prior to the solicitation closing date and time. 

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a stark warning to government contractors: when a bid protest is filed involving your contract, failing to timely intervene can cost you the ability to defend your award.  In Global K9 Protection Group, LLC v. United States, the Federal Circuit upheld the denial of K2 Solutions, Inc.’s motion to intervene, finding that K2 had waited too long to act despite having sufficient reason to do so.

In a significant decision for government contractors, on April 15, 2026, in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that bid protesters challenging an agency’s override of an automatic stay of contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) need not satisfy the demanding four-factor test traditionally required for preliminary injunctive relief.  In so doing, the Federal Circuit clarified that CICA stay override challenges need only demonstrate that the override decision was arbitrary and capricious—nothing more.

Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.

On December 12, 2025, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its annual report on bid protests for fiscal year 2025, containing the full statistics shown below:

GAO’s recent sustain of the protest filed by emissary LLC provides valuable lessons for potential offerors with respect to organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plans (and their impact on technical approach), as well as their descriptions of key personnel qualifications.

Earlier this year, we highlighted a notable Court of Federal Claims (CFC) decision recognizing that an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) contractor may be able to recover proposal preparation costs under the CFC’s bid protest jurisdiction. Now, in Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. v. United States, another CFC decision has reaches a similar conclusion and goes even further — also highlighting the potential to recover under the Court’s Contract Disputes Act (CDA) jurisdiction.  

The deadlines for filing a GAO protest are short and strictly enforced.  In post-award protests, the general rule is that a company must file its protest within ten days of when the protester knows, or should have known, of its basis of protest.  However, GAO’s regulations provide an exception to this rule for “protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required”—in such a situation, “[the] protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.”  4 CFR §21.2(a)(2).

On May 29, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it will begin a “phased pause in operations at contractor-operated Job Corps centers nationwide.” The pause is anticipated to occur within a month—by June 30, 2025. To effectuate this pause, DOL has suspended operations at approximately one hundred contractor-operated Job Corps centers.  DOL instructed centers to suspend program activities, transition students home, and implement other transition plans. According to DOL’s Frequently Asked Questions, the Department anticipates that  students will transition to “state and local workforce partners” including American Job Centers and the Labor Exchange system in their home state.

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.

A recent Court of Federal Claims decision addressed a novel fact pattern involving a bid protest (seeking bid preparation costs) relating to an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) and has the potential to expand contractor recovery opportunities in both areas of law.

A string of GAO protest sustains this spring, most recently in Owl International Inc., d/b/a Global, a 1st Flagship Company, B-423281, B-423281.2, April 25, 2025, demonstrates that the evaluation of professional employee compensation remains a successful post-award protest argument. 

On May 7, 2025, GAO issued a decision in Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, B-423447, warning the bid protest bar that artificial intelligence (“AI”)-based tools utilized without proper oversight may result in severe consequences, including dismissal of the protest and sanctions.

Most protests involve competitive procurements and the many rules governing how agencies are to conduct such procurements. In certain circumstances, agencies are permitted to bypass some of these rules and limit competition. But, as GAO noted in a recently issued sustain decision, the authority to use noncompetitive procedures does not provide the agency carte blanche.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, aimed at ensuring U.S. foreign assistance is “fully aligned” with the administration’s foreign policy goals. The Order called for an immediate 90-day pause on all foreign development assistance, applicable to all assistance funding for foreign countries, NGOs, international organizations, and federal contractors.