undefined
Skip to main content
Australia|en-AU

Add a bookmark to get started

Global Site
Africa
MoroccoEnglish
South AfricaEnglish
Asia Pacific
AustraliaEnglish
Hong Kong SAR ChinaEnglish简体中文
KoreaEnglish
New ZealandEnglish
SingaporeEnglish
ThailandEnglish
Europe
BelgiumEnglish
Czech RepublicEnglish
HungaryEnglish
IrelandEnglish
LuxembourgEnglish
NetherlandsEnglish
PolandEnglish
PortugalEnglish
RomaniaEnglish
Slovak RepublicEnglish
United KingdomEnglish
Middle East
BahrainEnglish
QatarEnglish
North America
Puerto RicoEnglish
United StatesEnglish
OtherForMigration
23 April 20242 minute read

Examining the divergent timeliness rules for solicitation protests at the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims

A potential offeror that is dissatisfied with the terms of a solicitation may communicate with an agency regarding those terms prior to the close of the solicitation and request that the agency amend the terms or otherwise take action to address the potential offeror’s concern. Indeed, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) expressly encourages the offeror to do so. 

However, by communicating with an agency regarding solicitation terms and requesting a remedy, a potential offeror may inadvertently trigger the start of the protest period at the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) if it receives an adverse agency response. 

On the other hand, that same communication may also preserve the offeror’s ability to timely file a protest regarding the terms of the solicitation at the US Court of Federal Claims, including, in certain circumstances, after award. 

Originally published in the Public Contract Law Journal, this alert examines the divergent timeliness rules with respect to solicitation protests at those fora.