The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”

The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series. In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice keeps you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month. Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in LJR Solutions, LLC, B-424487, Aug. 14, 2026, where GAO sustained a small business’s challenge to the National Institutes of Health’s decision not to set aside a procurement for small business concerns.

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.

In a post-award bid protest involving a nearly $100 million United States Navy Base Operations Support Contract (BOSC), Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC (Chugach) filed a protest at GAO contesting the award of the BOSC to CCS King George 2, LLC (CCS KG).  Chugach argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and made a flawed source selection decision. GAO denied the protest. Chugach then filed an action at the COFC. On August 17, 2026, the COFC reached a materially different outcome — sustaining the protest and ordering the Navy to cancel the award.

The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series. In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice keeps you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month. Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in Veterans Management Services, Inc., which provides an important reminder that once an agency sets the rules for the procurement, it must play by them.

We recently discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Global K9 Protection Group, LLC v. United States and the importance of intervening in bid protests, especially when an awardee’s interests may diverge from the government’s. Now, a more recent Court of Federal Claims decision, West Pacific-CMCS JV v. United States, provides additional guidance regarding intervention by a contract awardee.

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.

The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series. In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice keeps you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest decisions each month. Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s May 2026 decision in Mission Analytics, LLC—Recon., where a protest filing that missed GAO’s deadline by just 50 seconds set off a chain of procedural missteps that ultimately produced five dismissals across a single procurement, and offers some of the most practical filing guidance GAO has put to paper in recent memory.