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.

In a recent pre-award challenge to the terms of a solicitation, a small business contractor challenged the terms of an Air Force solicitation seeking a contractor to provide grounds maintenance at Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE), Virginia.  Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror.  In its protest, K&K JL Services, Inc. challenged two aspects of the RFP’s past performance instructions which: (1) required the submission of two past performance references; and (2) defined relevant size as a project with a value of at least $1 million per year.  K&K argued that these requirements were unduly restrictive of competition because they effectively exclude a number of small businesses that are capable of the work.

The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series.  In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice will keep 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 Anika Sys., Inc., B-422681.5, B-422681.6, Apr. 8, 2025, which found a technical evaluation unreasonable where it showed evidence of disparate treatment and imposed an unstated requirement for solutions to be “innovative and creative.”

The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series.  In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice will keep you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month.  Below, Crowell Consultant Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in Perimeter …

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.