As the second article of a three-part series, partners David Ralston and Frank Murray published a Thomson Reuters Practical Law practice note, “Government Contracts: COFC Bid Protests,” which ran on March 3, 2017.
Similar to the first part of the series that tackled Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests, this second part shifts analyzation focus to the bid protests with the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC). It explains why prospective bidders are unhappy with the terms of a federal government agency’s solicitation, and why they seek to challenge a federal government agency’s contract reward. It also compares the COFC bid protest advantages and disadvantages as they relate to GAO protests and those filed at the agency level.
Read the full article through the below PDF.
Similar to the first part of the series that tackled Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests, this second part shifts analyzation focus to the bid protests with the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC). It explains why prospective bidders are unhappy with the terms of a federal government agency’s solicitation, and why they seek to challenge a federal government agency’s contract reward. It also compares the COFC bid protest advantages and disadvantages as they relate to GAO protests and those filed at the agency level.
Read the full article through the below PDF.
Author(s)
Related Insights
May 22, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
New Lawsuit Tests the Limits of Donor-Advised Fund Advisory Privileges
A recent lawsuit seeking to clarify the extent of an advisor’s privileges with respect to a donor-advised fund (DAF) has been filed in…
May 22, 2026
Energy Current
FERC Just Rewrote the Rules for Natural Gas Infrastructure. Here’s What It Means.
Yesterday’s unanimous FERC vote is the most significant natural gas permitting reform in two decades — and its practical implications…
May 22, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
What the Federal Circuit’s Poultry Patent Ruling Says About 'About'
The decision does not appear to prohibit the use of terms such as "about" or "approximately." Rather, it reinforces that such terms may be acceptable where the patent record provides sufficient context for understanding the scope of the claimed range.