Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights provides our in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting. Through Insights, our attorneys offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments and trends that are shaping the industry. We also examine a full array of non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Morrison Foerster’s nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice represents the world’s leading companies in the aerospace and defense, intelligence, cybersecurity, information technology, financial and professional services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and logistics support sectors. We are enlisted to address our clients’ most complex and important legal issues. Our work includes contract and subcontract negotiation and other transactional matters, business and regulatory compliance counseling, internal investigations, bid protests, and a wide array of enforcement and litigation matters. Our clients range from Fortune 50 companies to small and medium-sized companies just entering the public sector. We advise both U.S. and non-U.S. companies involved in municipal, state, federal, and non-U.S. procurement matters.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

GAO Protest Timeline

govcon-gao-protest-timeline-thumb.jpg

Govcon GAO Post Award Protest Timeline Article

Contract Disputes Act Claim Timeline

govcon-contract-disputes-timeline-thumb.jpg

The Bayh-Dole Act

govcon-bayhdole-thumb.jpg

Anatomy of a Protest

govcon-federalclaimsprotest-thumb.jpg

Allowability of Legal Costs

govcon-allowabilityoflegalcosts-thumb.jpg

Procurement Integrity Act

240715-procurement-integrity-act-resized.jpg

Govcon-Resources

Tina is Co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She represents a wide variety of government contractors including information technology, defense, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical companies, with a focus on general contract counseling and compliance, particularly concerning intellectual property, and cybersecurity matters and federal grant funding.Tina counsels contractors on compliance with federal, state and local acquisition and ethics regulations and with the evolving myriad of requirements pertaining to data security and cybersecurity. She has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with mandatory and voluntary disclosures to agencies, and litigation of False Claims Act matters.Tina routinely advises clients concerning:<ul><li>Prime-subcontractor relationships</li><li>Sources of supply and country of origin requirements</li><li>Price reductions and price reporting issues</li><li>Organizational conflicts of interest</li><li>Safeguarding of intellectual property and other proprietary interests</li><li>Licensing and data rights issues</li><li>Handling of classified materials and controlled unclassified information</li><li>Agency suspension and debarment proceedings</li></ul>She also assists clients with due diligence and other activities related to the acquisition of government contracting concerns, and with the drafting and negotiation of teaming agreements, subcontracts, licensing agreements, and cooperative research and development agreements. She also assists clients applying for federal grants (including SBIR and STTR agreements), and those who seek to obtain other transactional authority agreements, as well as those competing for state and local government work.Tina’s litigation experience includes government contracts claims litigation in federal courts and before boards of contract appeals, bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, and complex disputes in federal courts, including civil fraud and False Claims Act litigation and reverse Freedom of Information Act litigation.Prior to joining Morrison Foerster, Tina worked at another large national firm and as a trial attorney in the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy, Navy Litigation Office.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul><li>Negotiation of largest CHIPS Act federal funding agreement between multinational semiconductor corporation and U.S. Department of Commerce.</li><li>Negotiated prime contract and major subcontracts related to the Department of Energy’s next generation supercomputer program, including extensive IP rights negotiations and negotiation of associated patent rights waivers.</li><li>Negotiated series of other transaction authority agreements with DARPA and associated subcontracts with more than a dozen research universities on behalf of a firm biotech client, including complex IP rights allocations and material transfer agreements.</li><li>Assist clients with FedRAMP authorization process and with development of license agreements for software products sold to federal, state and local government agencies.</li><li>Cyber incident response counseling to some of the largest companies and organizations impacted by security incidents.</li><li>Advises clients on Bayh-Dole reporting of inventions and IP strategies for contracts and grants.</li><li>Conducts due diligence for major government contract mergers and acquisitions.</li></ul>

reynolds_tina_blog_150x150.png

reynolds_tina_common_640x280.jpg

reynolds_tina_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

reynolds_tina_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

reynolds_tina_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Tina is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She counsels a wide variety of government contractors on compliance with federal acquisition and ethics regulations. She drafts and negotiates contracts on their behalf and has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with bid protest, contract claims, and False Claims Act litigation. She also advises on M&A transactions involving government contractors.

Tina D. Reynolds

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters. He has represented both protesters and awardees in scores of protests before the Government Accountability Office, the Court of Federal Claims, and procuring agencies, in acquisitions ranging from small business procurements to multibillion-dollar contracts of global significance. His representative protest matters span the aerospace sector, the Intelligence Community, base operations and logistics, healthcare, nuclear and environmental work, and information technology and software acquisitions. His protests have included both classified and unclassified programs. In addition to prevailing in published decisions, Jim has also secured favorable corrective action on behalf of clients in a wide variety of protests that were resolved without a published decision.Jim’s work also focuses on disputes over cost allowability and compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards, and he has appeared before the Armed Services and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals, in size and status protests before Small Business Administration (SBA) area offices, and appeals before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. Jim regularly counsels clients on contract interpretation, organizational conflicts of interest, and small business compliance.Jim graduated with high honors from the George Washington University Law School, where he focused his studies on federal procurement law, was a member of the Law Review, and interned with the General Services Administration’s suspension and debarment office. Jim also holds a degree in theology magna cum laude from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and a bachelor’s degree in classical languages and literature summa cum laude from the University of Kentucky, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

tucker_james_blog_150x150.png

tucker_james_common_640x280.jpg

tucker_james_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tucker_james_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tucker_james_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Jim maintains an active practice in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and contracting agencies and counsels clients in contract disputes and compliance obligations.

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters.

James Tucker

<div style="margin-bottom: 15px;" class="videoWrapper"><iframe class="sticky-video" title="Meet Alex Ward, Government Contracts Practice Co-Chair" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TkliwdSlTaQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="1" title="iframe"></iframe></div>J. Alex Ward is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement group. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including investigations, bid protests, claims, general litigation, corporate transactions, and counseling. Alex strives in all matters is to provide his clients the highest level of efficient and effective representation.Alex represents contractors in internal and external investigations, disclosures to the government, and qui tam litigation, with great success in reducing or eliminating his clients’ exposure through active engagement with the government. His work in this area includes obtaining numerous declinations and dismissals of False Claims Act cases in their earliest stages, sparing his clients the cost, risk, and exposure of litigation.He has also served as lead counsel in dozens of bid protests involving military and civilian agency procurements of a wide range of products and services, including all manner of pre- and post-award protests in the GAO, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and state tribunals, as well as appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and size protest appeals before the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.Alex handles all aspects of the claims process, from the initial assessment and drafting of requests for equitable adjustment through litigation in the Boards of Contract Appeals and the Court of Federal Claims. Alex’s practice also covers the full gamut of other controversies confronting government contractors, including prime-sub, teaming partner, employer-employee, competitor, and indemnification disputes. His litigation work also includes a wide variety of pro bono engagements, in which he has represented both individual and institutional clients in matters ranging from immigration and criminal defense to sustainable procurement and protection of the environment.Prior to joining the firm, Alex served in the U.S. Army as a commissioned officer and an Assistant to the General Counsel of the Army responsible for civil works and international matters, and as a clerk for judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the D.C. Circuit. He is a member of the Boards of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and of Law360’s Government Contracts Editorial Board.

ward_alex_blog_150x150.png

ward_alex_common_640x280.jpg

ward_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ward_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ward_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alex is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including bid protests, claims, investigations, corporate transactions, and counseling.

J. Alex Ward

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and procurement. Through Insights, attorneys from our nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice will offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments that are shaping the industry. This blog will also examine a full array of U.S. and non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Read about our <a href="http://govcon.mofo.com/editors/">Authors</a>.Never miss a post. Subscribe to get real-time updates.

Brad is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Litigation Department, Managing Partner of the Austin office, and Chair of the firm’s Israel practice. He is the former Co-Chair of the firm’s Global Litigation Practice and the Government Contracts + Public Procurement Practice.

Bradley Wine

gov-con-feature-image-thumb1.jpg

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

gov-con-feature-image_(1)1.jpg

The United States Capitol building

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and proc

Announcements & Press

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

Mofo+

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Our Government Contracts Insights blog provides in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting U.S. government contracting and non-U.S. public procureme

Government Contracts Insights

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Blog - Govcon RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Government Contracts Insights. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The latest updates and analysis from Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster - Footer

This month’s Bid Protest Roundup examines three recent decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”). The first two protests involve late proposal submissions both at the GAO and at the COFC, and the third involves establishing interested party status and timeliness. 

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Acquisition Regulations

Artificial Intelligence + Robotics

Compliance

Coronavirus

Cybersecurity & Data Privacy

Data Rights

Defense

Domestic Preferences

False Claims Act

Federal Procurement

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Grants

Health Care

Intellectual Property

International Public Procurement

Labor & Employment

Mergers & Acquisitions

National Security

Protests & Litigation

Resources

Schedule Contracting

Small Business

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

April 2022 Bid Protest Spotlight: Late-Is-Late, Party Interest, Timeliness

April 2022 Bid Protest Spotlight: Late-Is-Late, Party Interest, Timeliness | Government Contracts Insights

Caitlin A. Crujido

This month’s Bid Protest Roundup examines three recent decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”). The first two protests involve late proposal submissions both at the GAO and at the COFC, and the third involves establishing interested party status and timeliness. FreeAlliance.com, LLC v. United States<a href="about:blank">[i]</a>We have written before about the GAO’s strict rules for late proposals and have noted that the COFC is often more forgiving. In the protest of FreeAlliance.com, LLC v. United States, however, the court took a page from the GAO’s book and upheld the agency’s application of the “late is late” rule.In late 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “Agency”) issued a solicitation for a single‑award Blanket Purchase Agreement. The acquisition was to be conducted utilizing a multi-phased down select approach. Following a round of corrective action, the Agency issued an amendment to the solicitation advising Phase 2 participants of the new deadlines for questions and revised quotations. The Agency informed vendors that if responses were not received by the January 19, 2022 deadline, the vendor would be considered nonresponsive and removed from consideration for award. Shortly thereafter, the Agency issued a “clarification statement” to the amendment, extending the quotation deadline by two days to January 21, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. EST. On January 21, 2022, at 11:51 a.m., FreeAlliance.com, LLC (“FreeAlliance”) attached its revised quotation to an email to the contracting specialist. FreeAlliance did not receive a delivery receipt, so an employee sent the Agency a “test message” at 12:03 p.m. to determine whether the earlier message had been received. The contracting specialist responded to FreeAlliance’s test message at 12:10 p.m., confirmed that the email did not contain any attachments, and instructed FreeAlliance to zip the attachments or send in separate emails. At 12:15 p.m., FreeAlliance resent its quotation in a zip file to everyone copied on the contracting specialist’s email, including the contracting officer. At 3:00 p.m., FreeAlliance emailed the contracting specialist and requested confirmation of receipt and evaluation of its quotation. In response to FreeAlliance’s email, the contracting specialist asked the Agency’s IT department to determine the exact time FreeAlliance’s 11:51 a.m. email was received by the IRS servers.The IRS confirmed that FreeAlliance’s email reached its servers at 12:06 p.m. – six minutes past the deadline set forth in the clarification statement to the amendment. The contracting specialist emailed FreeAlliance to inform the company that because its revised quotation was received after the time stated in the Solicitation and in accordance with the “late is late” rule, FreeAlliance was thus ineligible for award. FreeAlliance then filed a protest at the COFC. FreeAlliance challenged the Agency’s decision in two respects. First, FreeAlliance argued the “late is late” rule was inapplicable because the original Solicitation did not include a late proposal submission and the amendment did not incorporate any explicit “late is late” provisions from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”). FreeAlliance suggested that because the late quotation prohibition appeared on page one of the amendment and stated that the solicitation is “revised as identified on the following pages,” only pages two through five actually modified the solicitation. The court found this argument unconvincing because, when read in its entirety, the Agency clearly intended all pages of the amendment to modify the Solicitation. The court also concluded that, although the original solicitation did not include a proposal deadline and the amendment did not include a specific FAR timing provision, the amendment was enforceable on its terms.Second, FreeAlliance argued the Agency’s decision not to waive the quotation deadline was arbitrary and irrational because the Agency had the authority to waive the deadline as a minor informality. The court disagreed because that authority only applies in procurements governed by FAR Parts 12 and 15 and this was a FAR Part 8 procurement. Accordingly, the Agency’s decision to enforce the terms of the solicitation and reject FreeAlliance’s submission as late was rational. Takeaway: This case reiterates the importance of submitting proposals with ample time to account for technological glitches delaying transmission of your proposal. We are also reminded that where the solicitation and any of its amendments provide an explicit deadline for proposal submission, even the court will enforce the “late is late” rule. VERSA Integrated Solutions, Inc.<a href="about:blank">[ii]</a>Unlike the COFC, which has adopted certain exceptions to the “late is late” rule (none of which applied in FreeAlliance.com v. United States), the GAO has maintained a strict approach to late proposal submissions. Indeed, when presented with an express opportunity (or rather, a request) to revise this approach, the GAO has declined to do so. In the protest of VERSA Integrated Solutions, Inc., the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS” or “Agency”) issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”), which provided for the submission of proposals in two parts. Part one proposals were to be submitted electronically to the contract specialist with a courtesy copy to the contracting officer by November 12, 2021, at 12 p.m. EST. The RFP also incorporated FAR 52.212-1(f), which provides that any offer received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is considered late and will not be considered for award unless it is received before award is made, the contracting officer determines that accepting the late offer will not unduly delay the acquisition; and<blockquote>(A) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of offers; or    </blockquote><blockquote>(B) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government’s installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of offers.</blockquote>48 C.F.R § 52.212-1(f)(2)(A)-(B). On November 12, 2021, the Agency received 20 part one proposals. On January 24, 2022, the Agency concluded its evaluation of proposals and sent advisory notifications to the 20 offerors. On February 8, 2022, a representative from VERSA Integrated Solutions, Inc. (“Versa”) contacted the contracting officer for an update on the status of its proposal. The contracting officer informed Versa that it had not received its part one proposal submission. Versa sent the Agency a series of trace logs from its server, showing that it had submitted its proposal to the Agency well in advance of the deadline. While the Agency’s IT personnel worked to verify whether Versa’s proposal made it to the Government servers, Versa filed a protest with the GAO. It was then discovered that Versa’s part one proposal was received prior to the submission deadline but quarantined by the Agency’s server and not received by either the contracting officer or the contract specialist.Versa argued the Agency’s rejection of its proposal was unreasonable because Versa submitted its part one proposal before the deadline and the Agency was in control of the proposal following submission. Most notably, Versa acknowledged that the GAO has previously considered and rejected the application of the “government control” exception in Sea Box, Inc., B-291056, Oct. 31, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 181. In its protest, however, Versa requested the GAO use this case as an opportunity to revisit its prior decision. The GAO declined to overturn its decision in Sea Box and explained that FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i)(A) applies to proposals submitted by electronic means and only permits a late proposal to be considered when it was received at the initial point of entry no later than 5:00 p.m. the preceding working day. The GAO further noted that if it were to consider electronically submitted proposals as eligible under FAR 52.212‑1(f)(2)(i)(B), regardless of whether they were received by 5:00 p.m. the day before the proposal due date, FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i)(A) would ultimately be rendered null. Accordingly, because Versa’s proposal did not arrive to the initial point of entry by 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the deadline, in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, the GAO concluded that the Agency properly rejected Versa’s proposal. Takeaway: Where FAR 52.212-1 is included in the solicitation and proposals are to be submitted electronically, it is in the contractor’s best interest to submit its proposal by 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the proposal submission deadline. If this is not possible, we recommend requesting confirmation of receipt of the proposal with enough time to allow resubmission if necessary. This protest is also yet another reminder of GAO’s strict adherence to the “late is late” rule, so it is best to avoid these types of protest arguments at all costs.U.S. Marine Management, Inc.<a href="about:blank">[iii]</a>Our final protest for this month’s Bid Protest Roundup covers interested party status and timeliness, both of which are critical to achieving a successful protest.In U.S. Marine Management, Inc., the Department of the Navy (“Navy” or “Agency”) issued an RFP under FAR Part 12, using the negotiated procurement policies under FAR Part 15, for a time charter of an ice-glass tanker vessel. The RFP included FAR 52.212-1, which allows an offer to be withdrawn by written notice that is received at any time before the exact time set for the receipt of offers.Marine Management, Inc. (“Marine Management”) submitted three proposals in response to the RFP, each proposing different vessels. The Agency engaged in discussions with Marine Management from August 12, 2021 through August 26, 2021. On September 7, 2021, Marine Management submitted one revised proposal, reaffirmed another proposal without revisions, and withdrew its third and final proposal. On November 3, 2021, the Agency notified Marine Management that, although its third proposal was ultimately withdrawn, it had been included in the competitive range. Marine Management’s remaining proposals – the ones it did not withdraw – were excluded from the competitive range.After the conclusion of discussions, the Navy set a date for final proposal revisions; Marine Management did not submit any final revised proposals. On December 23, 2021, the Navy informed Marine Management that it did not receive the tanker charter contract. The Notice of Award informed unsuccessful offerors of their right to request a debriefing, so Marine Management requested and received a debriefing for the proposal it withdrew. After receiving the Agency’s responses to Marine Management’s debriefing questions, Marine Management submitted the subject protest to the GAO, arguing the Agency relaxed or waived solicitation requirements for the awardee and that the awardee’s technical and price evaluation was unreasonable. The Agency submitted a motion to dismiss the protest, arguing in part that Marine Management is not an interested party because its proposals were either withdrawn or excluded from the competitive range. Marine Management responded that it was an interested party because the procurement errors alleged warrant the cancelation and resolicitation of the contract. The GAO was not convinced. The GAO explained that if it sustained Marine Management’s challenges to the awardees’s technical and price evaluation, the recommendation would be for the Agency to reevaluate proposals and make a new award decision. Such recommendation, however, would not involve consideration of any of Marine Management’s proposals because, as discussed, two of Marine Management’s proposals were excluded from the competitive range and one was withdrawn. Thus, if the GAO sustained Marine Management’s challenges, Marine Management would neither be next in line for award nor would it be able to submit a revised proposal. Accordingly, the GAO found that Marine Management did not qualify as an interested party to challenge the Agency’s technical and price evaluation of the awardee’s proposal.The Agency also argued that Marine Management’s protest was untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after Marine Management learned of the basis for its remaining protest ground. The Agency explained that Marine Management’s post-award debriefing was not required and was instead a courtesy that did not toll the 10-day period to file a protest. The GAO agreed, finding that because Marine Management withdrew its proposal in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Marine Management was not considered an unsuccessful offeror entitled to a post-award debriefing. With that, the GAO analyzed the timeliness of Marine Management’s protest without the debriefing exception and determined that Marine Management’s protest was untimely.Takeaway: This protest is a reminder that contractors must overcome various jurisdictional hurdles before the GAO will hear its protest on the merits. Both interested party status and timeliness are key to achieving a sustained protest and should be analyzed carefully before pursuing a protest. <a href="about:blank">[i]</a> FreeAlliance.com, LLC v. United States, No. 22-132C, 2022 WL 1231248 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 22, 2022).<a href="about:blank">[ii]</a> VERSA Integrated Solutions, Inc., B-420530, Apr. 13, 2022, 2022 WL 1165978.<a href="about:blank">[iii]</a> U.S. Marine Management, Inc., B-420268, Apr. 14, 2022, 2022 WL 1184093.

More

Associate

Less Oversight and Undefined Penalties: The NDAA’s Proposed Protest Reforms

The Tortured Regulations Department: SBA’s New Rule and Its Effect on Investments

Bid Protest Spotlight: Standing, Relationships, Responsibility

House’s Passage of the SAMOSA Act Signals Policy Shift Towards Government-Wide Enterprise Software Licensing

New DFARS Regulation on Small Business Affiliate Past Performance

LinkedIN