{
  "id": "R45080",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45080",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 588157,
      "date": "2018-11-28",
      "retrieved": "2019-04-18T13:21:19.080485",
      "title": "Government Contract Bid Protests: Analysis of Legal Processes and Recent Developments",
      "summary": "In FY2017, the federal government obligated approximately $500 billion to procure goods and services. Federal procurement statutes and regulations\u2014notably the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the government-wide regulation that generally applies to acquisitions by executive branch agencies\u2014establish largely uniform policies and procedures for how federal executive agencies acquire goods and services. The purpose of these standards is to guide the acquisition system \u201cto deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the [government], while maintaining the public\u2019s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives,\u201d such as the promotion of competition. In an effort to advance the transparency, fairness, and integrity of the procurement system, federal law provides mechanisms for contractors to \u201cprotest\u201d (i.e., object to) contract awards and solicitations for failing to comply with federal law.\nGenerally, a bid protest is a written objection to the conduct of a government agency in acquiring supplies and services for its direct use or benefit. Among other things, the challenged conduct can include violations of law or regulation in the way in which an agency solicits offers for a contract, cancels such a solicitation, awards a contract, or cancels a contract.\nCongress authorizes bid protests in three separate forums: (1) the procuring agency, (2) the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or (3) the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). The three forums share some common features. For example, they each utilize the same definition of \u201cinterested party\u201d to govern who may file a valid protest. However, the applicable legal procedures and available remedies vary considerably under each forum. Parties generally consider these distinctions when choosing the forum or forums in which to file a protest. These distinctions arguably seek to further Congress\u2019s desire to maintain balance between an efficient and timely, yet fair and transparent, procurement system. \nGenerally, protests before the procuring agency and GAO tend to be resolved faster and less expensively than challenges before the COFC because they are subject to specific resolution timetables and less formal procedures. Additionally, parties that file a protest with either the procuring agency or GAO generally gain the benefit of an \u201cautomatic stay\u201d that bars an agency from awarding or implementing a contract while a protest is pending. In contrast, while filing a protest with the COFC is frequently more time-consuming and expensive and does not trigger an automatic stay, protests before the COFC have the potential to result in legally binding and conclusive judicial decisions and orders. Procuring agency decisions and GAO bid protest recommendations, on the other hand, are not legally binding. Furthermore, interested parties that disagree with GAO or procuring agency decisions generally can still bring claims before the COFC, whereas the reverse route is generally not permitted. \nAnother important distinction among the forums is that the scope of discovery is potentially broader in a protest before the COFC because the court generally reviews the entire administrative record of a procurement. In contrast, neither GAO nor the procuring agency hearing a bid protest typically compels a procuring agency to produce documents, and GAO typically reviews only those documents that are relevant to the particular protest. Furthermore, while GAO and the procuring agency are limited to a finite list of statutorily authorized remedies, the COFC may \u201caward any relief that the court considers proper\u201d with the exception of certain monetary relief.\nSome in Congress have expressed a need for procurement reform, generally, and bid protest procedural reform, specifically. In recent years, Congress has passed several provisions intended to address concerns with the bid protest process, such as Section 822 of the FY2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which largely have been focused on increasing Congress\u2019s understanding of how legislative amendments to bid protest procedures could enhance the efficiency of the procurement process, discourage unwarranted protests, and generally improve procurement outcomes for the federal government.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45080",
          "sha1": "dfbc8f43ac945612d2f8fe2e3d5c58925219b014",
          "filename": "files/20181128_R45080_dfbc8f43ac945612d2f8fe2e3d5c58925219b014.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45080",
          "sha1": "42fd38538c628fb911af2f048af1c2444d5ba08c",
          "filename": "files/20181128_R45080_42fd38538c628fb911af2f048af1c2444d5ba08c.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4752,
          "name": "Government Contracts"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 585640,
      "date": "2018-09-26",
      "retrieved": "2018-10-05T22:14:41.167907",
      "title": "Government Contract Bid Protests: Analysis of Legal Processes and Recent Developments",
      "summary": "In FY2017, the federal government obligated approximately $500 billion to procure goods and services. Federal procurement statutes and regulations\u2014notably the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the government-wide regulation that generally applies to acquisitions by executive branch agencies\u2014establish largely uniform policies and procedures for how federal executive agencies acquire goods and services. The purpose of these standards is to guide the acquisition system \u201cto deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the [government], while maintaining the public\u2019s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives,\u201d  such as the promotion of competition. In an effort to advance the transparency, fairness, and integrity of the procurement system, federal law provides mechanisms for contractors to \u201cprotest\u201d (i.e., object to) contract awards and solicitations for failing to comply with federal law.\nGenerally, a bid protest is a written objection to the conduct of a government agency in acquiring supplies and services for its direct use or benefit. Among other things, the challenged conduct can include violations of law or regulation in the way in which an agency solicits offers for a contract, cancels such a solicitation, awards a contract, or cancels a contract.\nCongress authorizes bid protests in three separate forums: (1) the procuring agency, (2) the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or (3) the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). The three forums share some common features. For example, they each utilize the same definition of \u201cinterested party\u201d to govern who may file a valid protest. However, the applicable legal procedures and available remedies vary considerably under each forum. Parties generally consider these distinctions when choosing the forum or forums in which to file a protest. These distinctions arguably seek to further Congress\u2019s desire to maintain balance between an efficient and timely, yet fair and transparent, procurement system. \nGenerally, protests before the procuring agency and GAO tend to be resolved faster and less expensively than challenges before the COFC because they are subject to specific resolution timetables and less formal procedures. Additionally, parties that file a protest with either the procuring agency or GAO generally gain the benefit of an \u201cautomatic stay\u201d that bars an agency from awarding or implementing a contract while a protest is pending. In contrast, while filing a protest with the COFC is frequently more time-consuming and expensive and does not trigger an automatic stay, protests before the COFC have the potential to result in legally binding and conclusive judicial decisions and orders. Procuring agency decisions and GAO bid protest recommendations, on the other hand, are not legally binding. Furthermore, interested parties that disagree with GAO or procuring agency decisions generally can still bring claims before the COFC, whereas the reverse route is generally not permitted. \nAnother important distinction among the forums is that the scope of discovery is potentially broader in a protest before the COFC because the court generally reviews the entire administrative record of a procurement. In contrast, neither GAO nor the procuring agency hearing a bid protest typically compels a procuring agency to produce documents, and GAO typically reviews only those documents that are relevant to the particular protest. Furthermore, while GAO and the procuring agency are limited to a finite list of statutorily authorized remedies, the COFC may \u201caward any relief that the court considers proper\u201d with the exception of certain monetary relief.\nSome in Congress have expressed a need for procurement reform, generally, and bid protest procedural reform, specifically. In recent years, Congress has passed several provisions intended to address concerns with the bid protest process, such as Section 822 of the FY2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which largely have been focused on increasing Congress\u2019s understanding of how legislative amendments to bid protest procedures could enhance the efficiency of the procurement process, discourage unwarranted protests, and generally improve procurement outcomes for the federal government.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45080",
          "sha1": "8168a096c03c73ea0c1df5d51990a22316d7dc55",
          "filename": "files/20180926_R45080_8168a096c03c73ea0c1df5d51990a22316d7dc55.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45080",
          "sha1": "f9c038676c6389d30d8c6696cf0c521443124062",
          "filename": "files/20180926_R45080_f9c038676c6389d30d8c6696cf0c521443124062.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4752,
          "name": "Government Contracts"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 577759,
      "date": "2018-01-19",
      "retrieved": "2018-01-26T14:24:55.399790",
      "title": "Government Contract Bid Protests In Brief: Analysis of Legal Processes and Recent Developments",
      "summary": "Suppressed Summary \u2013Terms for CRS Search Engine\nProcurement\nGovernment contract\nBid protest\nFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)\nCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA)\nU.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)\nGovernment Accountability Office (GAO)\nAutomatic stay\nProcuring agency",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45080",
          "sha1": "914e5542c5800bffd63bd978212a9b4a3c2c453f",
          "filename": "files/20180119_R45080_914e5542c5800bffd63bd978212a9b4a3c2c453f.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45080",
          "sha1": "304fd875e7b5552dfa6f0c03439eff791bfaca30",
          "filename": "files/20180119_R45080_304fd875e7b5552dfa6f0c03439eff791bfaca30.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "National Defense"
  ]
}