Toolkit · Government Contracts

The Government Contracts Toolkit

41 U.S.C. § 4106(c)

Type
Toolkit
Jurisdiction
National
Date
2025-09-02
Topic
Government Contracts

A research and resource map for federal procurement practice, built for contractor counsel, agency lawyers, protest and claims litigators, and compliance officers. Ten pillars organize the field: the FAR architecture and the clauses read in by operation of law, contracting officer authority and the constructive change that rescues unauthorized direction, the competition requirement and the vehicles through which most awards now flow, source selection and the evaluation record that decides protests, protests themselves including the timeliness and waiver rules and the statutory task order bar, changes and delay and the pricing of equitable adjustments, terminations for convenience and default, claims under the Contract Disputes Act and the certification that converts an inflated demand into a fraud case, the cost and pricing regime of TINA and CAS and FAR Part 31, and the eligibility and exclusion rules running from affiliation through suspension and debarment. Each pillar states the doctrine, names the controlling authorities, identifies the trap competent practitioners fall into and its second-order consequence, and points deeper. An authority shelf collects the statutes, regulations, leading cases, and secondary sources including the standard treatises and journals. Two appendices supply a problem-to-mechanism decision matrix and a deadline triage sheet.

The Government Contracts Toolkit

Government Contracts > Federal Procurement | Published 2 September 2025 - Updated 29 July 2026 | UpLaw - uplaw.us

In brief. Three questions dispose of most federal contracting problems. What clause governs, and did you give the notice it requires? What clock is already running? Who actually had authority to say that? The clause is in the solicitation, the clock started before anyone noticed, and the answer to the third question is almost never the person who said it.

Keywords: FAR, Christian, Merrill, CICA, best value, Blue & Gold, Bannum, task order bar, CDA, sum certain, Daewoo, Spearin, Eichleay, Krygoski, TINA, CAS, FAR Part 31, affiliation, OCI, debarment

How This Toolkit Is Organized

Ten pillars, each giving the doctrine, the anchors, the trap and its second order consequence, and where to go deeper. Then the authority shelf, then two appendices: a problem-to-mechanism decision matrix and a deadline triage sheet.

The narrative entry point is The Rules of the Game: How Federal Procurement Actually Works and Where Bidders Lose. The doctrinal treatment is Government Contracts: A Comprehensive Guide to the FAR, Bid Protests, and Claims. The operational sequence is Bidding on a Federal Contract: A Compliance Checklist.

Running parties throughout: Kestrel Systems (fictional), a 60-person engineering firm; Bexar Fabrication (fictional), its subcontractor; Talon Integrated Services (fictional), the incumbent; and the Federal Sustainment Agency (fictional).

Pillar 1 — The FAR Architecture, and Terms You Did Not Negotiate

Doctrine. Federal contract terms come from regulation, not from bargaining. The FAR prescribes which clauses apply and often their exact text; agency supplements add and restrict; and a mandatory clause expressing deeply ingrained procurement policy is incorporated by operation of law even if nobody wrote it into the document.

Anchors. 48 C.F.R. Chapter 1 (FAR); DFARS and other agency supplements; FAR Part 12 (commercial products and services). G.L. Christian & Associates v. United States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963) (termination for convenience read in). S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. v. United States, 12 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (applying the doctrine to a mandatory clause).

Trap. Reading the signed document and stopping. Section I incorporates most of the operative terms by reference, and the clauses that allocate the largest risks — changes, terminations, disputes, inspection, data rights — usually appear nowhere in full text. Print the incorporated clauses and read them.

Trap, second order. Assuming the doctrine cuts both ways. Contractors regularly argue that a clause favorable to them should be read in; they usually lose, because the policies courts have found deeply ingrained are overwhelmingly the government's. A missing clause is a government option, not a contractor defense.

Go deeper: Guide Part I · Checklist Phase 2

Pillar 2 — Authority, and the Constructive Change

Doctrine. Only a warranted contracting officer binds the United States. There is no meaningful apparent authority against the sovereign. But unauthorized direction can still be recovered through the constructive change doctrine or through ratification by someone with actual authority who knew the material facts.

Anchors. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947) (parties are charged with knowledge of agents' authority limits). Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture, 497 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (contracting officer's authority cannot be delegated away by conduct). Harbert/Lummus Agrifuels Projects v. United States, 142 F.3d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (institutional ratification requires knowledge).

Trap. Following the COR. Program-level direction is fast, plausible, and free of paperwork, and it produces uncompensated work at a scale no other error matches. The most expensive sentence in this field is "the COR told us to."

Trap, second order. Documenting late. A constructive change claim is proved with contemporaneous writings — a same-day notice to the CO naming who gave the direction, plus a discrete charge number opened before the first hour is worked. Reconstructed narratives lose, which is precisely why the total cost method exists and why boards treat it as a last resort.

Go deeper: Guide Part VII · Checklist Phases 10–11

Pillar 3 — Competition, Exceptions, and Vehicles

Doctrine. Agencies must obtain full and open competition through competitive procedures, subject to seven statutory exceptions each requiring a written justification. Most spending now flows through multiple-award vehicles where the real competition happens at the order level.

Anchors. 41 U.S.C. § 3301; 10 U.S.C. § 3201. FAR Parts 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 19. AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (scope of a competed contract). SBA rule-of-two reservation and the set-aside authorities at 13 C.F.R. Part 125.

Trap. Treating an IDIQ award as a win. The government's only enforceable obligation is the stated minimum, which is frequently nominal, and a firm that staffs to the ceiling has assumed a business risk rather than acquired a contract right.

Trap, second order. Ignoring the rule of two and the sole-source justification. A justification for other than full and open competition is protestable, and it fails most often where the claimed single source resulted from the agency's own failure to plan. Conversely, an agency that proceeded unrestricted on a thin market survey has given small business offerors a live ground — one that must be raised before proposals are due.

Go deeper: Guide Parts II–III

Pillar 4 — Source Selection and the Evaluation Record

Doctrine. The agency must evaluate consistent with the stated factors and only the stated factors, conduct meaningful and equal discussions if it opens them, and document a tradeoff that explains why any price premium is worth paying.

Anchors. FAR Part 15. Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (CPARS challenges lie under the CDA). Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (evaluation must follow stated criteria). Banknote Corp. of America v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (deference to reasonable evaluation judgments).

Trap. Writing to the work statement instead of to Section M. Evaluators score against the evaluation factors; a technically superior proposal that does not map to them loses to a weaker one that does. Build a compliance matrix from Sections L and M before drafting a sentence.

Trap, second order. Treating adjectival ratings as the decision. Ratings are shorthand; the source selection authority must look behind them at the underlying strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The most common defect in a source selection decision document is a comparison of ratings rather than of merit — which is also the most common winning protest ground, and it is invisible until the debriefing.

Go deeper: Guide Part IV · Checklist Phase 6

Pillar 5 — Protests: Forum, Clock, Waiver, and the Task Order Bar

Doctrine. Three forums, three different clocks, one automatic stay, a deferential standard, a separate prejudice requirement — and a statutory bar that removes most task orders from review entirely.

Anchors. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551–3556 and 4 C.F.R. Part 21 (GAO); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) (Court of Federal Claims); FAR 33.103 (agency). Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (waiver of patent solicitation defects); COMINT Systems Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Inserso Corp. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, 20 F.4th 759 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prejudice). Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rational basis). Task order bar: 41 U.S.C. § 4106(f); 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f); SRA International, Inc. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 2014); 22nd Century Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 57 F.4th 993 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Trap. Waiting for the debriefing to end. The 10-day clock runs on knowledge of the basis, not on closure, and the shorter window that preserves the CICA automatic stay is shorter still. Decide by the stay date, not the outer date.

Trap, second order. Winning the error and losing on prejudice. A real evaluation defect that would not have changed the outcome is a free error. Plead and prove the substantial chance of award — for a third-ranked offeror that usually means attacking the evaluation of the intervening proposals too, which changes the shape of the protest from the first draft.

Go deeper: Guide Parts V–VI · Checklist Phases 7, 9

Pillar 6 — Changes, Delay, and the Equitable Adjustment

Doctrine. The Changes clause makes federal contracts unilaterally flexible and compensably so. Most recovery flows from it, from constructive changes, from defective specifications, and from government-caused delay — each conditioned on notice.

Anchors. United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918) (implied warranty of design specifications). Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States, 742 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (good faith and fair dealing); Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Wickham Contracting Co. v. Fischer, 12 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and P.J. Dick Inc. v. Principi, 324 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Eichleay). Servidone Construction Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (total cost method).

Trap. Missing the clause notice. Differing site conditions requires written notice before the conditions are disturbed, and the field's instinct is to solve the problem and keep working. The entitlement is gone before anyone in the office hears about it.

Trap, second order. Pleading damages the law does not allow. Eichleay is the exclusive route to unabsorbed home office overhead and its prerequisites — uncertain delay, genuine standby, no replacement work — are strictly applied. Total cost is permitted only where individual proof is impossible and three further conditions are met. A claim that leads with a total-cost number tells the board the contractor kept no records, which colors every other element.

Go deeper: Guide Part VIII · The Construction Law Toolkit

Pillar 7 — Terminations

Doctrine. The government may terminate any contract for its convenience and recover nothing; the contractor recovers incurred costs, profit on work performed, and settlement expenses, but never anticipatory profit. A default termination is the government's remedy, and an improper one converts to a convenience termination.

Anchors. Krygoski Construction Co. v. United States, 94 F.3d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1996), narrowing Torncello v. United States, 681 F.2d 756 (Ct. Cl. 1982). Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (government bears the burden of justifying default). Securiforce International America, LLC v. Hayes, 925 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019). FAR Part 49.

Trap. Litigating the government's right to terminate for convenience. Bad faith and clear abuse of discretion are almost never established, and the effort spends credibility that belongs in the settlement proposal. Fight over the amount, not the right.

Trap, second order. Absorbing a default. A default termination is not one bad day — it is reprocurement liability, lost progress payments, a CPARS record that prices itself into every future bid, and a present-responsibility problem in front of every future contracting officer. Because the government carries the burden and an improper default converts, the appeal is usually worth taking even when the operational instinct is to move on quietly.

Go deeper: Guide Part X

Pillar 8 — Claims, Certification, and Fraud Exposure

Doctrine. Performance disputes run through a jurisdictional sequence: a written claim to the contracting officer stating a sum certain, a final decision, then a board appeal within 90 days or a Court of Federal Claims suit within 12 months. Above a threshold, the claim must be certified — and the certification is a sworn statement.

Anchors. Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109; interest at § 7109. M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 466 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Boeing Co. v. United States, 968 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Daewoo Engineering & Construction Co. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009); H.L. Smith, Inc. v. Dalton, 49 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Forfeiture, 28 U.S.C. § 2514; False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733; 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Trap. Treating the certified claim like a commercial opening demand. Padding is expected in private negotiation and is a federal offense here. Daewoo ended with a judgment against the contractor of roughly $50 million on a $64 million claim.

Trap, second order. Converting an REA into a claim without pricing the conversion. Certification starts interest and forces a decision — but it also makes prosecution costs unallowable, where REA preparation costs incurred in ordinary contract administration may be allowable, and it converts a negotiation into an adversarial proceeding with a fraud overlay. Choose deliberately and write down the reasoning, because the choice is second-guessed later by auditors as often as by judges.

Go deeper: Guide Part IX · The False Claims Act: A Comprehensive Guide

Pillar 9 — Cost, Pricing, and Accounting Compliance

Doctrine. On negotiated work above the threshold without adequate price competition or a commercial exception, the contractor certifies that its cost or pricing data are current, accurate, and complete. On flexibly priced work, every cost must be reasonable, allocable, and allowable. On larger contracts, cost accounting practices must be disclosed, consistent, and unchanged without adjustment.

Anchors. Truthful Cost or Pricing Data, 10 U.S.C. §§ 3701–3708 and 41 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3509; Rumsfeld v. United Technologies Corp., 315 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (natural and probable consequence). Cost Accounting Standards, 41 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1506 and 48 C.F.R. Chapter 99; Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Raytheon Co. v. United States, 747 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cost principles, FAR Part 31; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, 728 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (no presumption of reasonableness).

Trap. The unswept quote. Defective pricing findings rarely involve dishonesty; they involve a supplier quotation that arrived days before price agreement and never reached the pricing team. A documented sweep immediately before agreement defeats almost all of them and costs an afternoon.

Trap, second order. The accidental cost accounting practice change. Reorganizing cost centers, changing a fringe allocation base, or moving a category from indirect to direct is a practice change requiring a cost impact analysis — and it is typically discovered three years later in an audit, as a government claim with interest. Growing companies commit this error precisely when they are least able to absorb it.

Go deeper: Guide Part XI

Pillar 10 — Eligibility and Exclusion

Doctrine. Set-aside eligibility turns on size measured with affiliates, on socioeconomic certification, and on performing the required share of the work. Compliance exposure runs through organizational conflicts, procurement integrity, and mandatory disclosure — and ends not in damages but in exclusion from the market.

Anchors. 13 C.F.R. § 121.103 (affiliation, including the ostensible subcontractor rule); 13 C.F.R. § 125.6 (limitations on subcontracting). FAR Subpart 9.5 (OCI); Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and Turner Construction Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (hard facts, and deference to an analysis actually performed). Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2107. Mandatory disclosure, FAR 52.203-13. Suspension and debarment, FAR Subpart 9.4.

Trap. Building the best team instead of the compliant one. If the incumbent subcontractor performs the primary and vital work, supplies the program manager, and drafted the technical volume, SBA will treat the firms as affiliated and the award will not survive a size protest filed within five business days.

Trap, second order. Treating mandatory disclosure as a litigation decision. Knowing failure to timely disclose credible evidence is itself a cause for suspension or debarment, which means silence is not a neutral option and the clock runs during the internal investigation. Firms that have already built the mitigating factors — self-disclosure, cooperation, discipline, functioning internal controls — negotiate administrative agreements. Firms that assemble them after the notice arrives look exactly like firms that assembled them after the notice arrived.

Go deeper: Guide Parts XII–XIII · Checklist Phases 3, 5, 12

The Authority Shelf

Statutes

Regulations

Leading cases — formation and protest

  • G.L. Christian & Assocs. v. United States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963) · Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970) · AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993) · Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) · Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) · Banknote Corp. of America v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) · Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) · Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) · Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) · Turner Construction Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) · COMINT Systems Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) · SRA International, Inc. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 2014) · Inserso Corp. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020) · Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, 20 F.4th 759 (Fed. Cir. 2021) · 22nd Century Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 57 F.4th 993 (Fed. Cir. 2023)

Leading cases — performance, claims, and cost

  • United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918) · Severin v. United States, 99 Ct. Cl. 435 (1943) · Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947) · Erickson Air Crane Co. of Washington v. United States, 731 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1984) · Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987) · Servidone Construction Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1991) · Wickham Contracting Co. v. Fischer, 12 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994) · H.L. Smith, Inc. v. Dalton, 49 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1995) · United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996) · Krygoski Construction Co. v. United States, 94 F.3d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1996) · P.J. Dick Inc. v. Principi, 324 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) · Rumsfeld v. United Technologies Corp., 315 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) · Daewoo Engineering & Construction Co. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009) · M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 466 (Fed. Cir. 2010) · Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011) · Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, 728 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) · Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States, 742 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2014) · Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014) · Securiforce International America, LLC v. Hayes, 925 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) · The Boeing Co. v. United States, 968 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) · Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016)

Secondary sources

  • John Cibinic, Jr., Ralph C. Nash, Jr. & Christopher R. Yukins, Formation of Government Contracts — the standard formation treatise
  • John Cibinic, Jr., Ralph C. Nash, Jr. & James F. Nagle, Administration of Government Contracts — the standard performance and claims treatise
  • Ralph C. Nash, Jr. & John Cibinic, Jr., Cost-Reimbursement Contracting; Karen L. Manos, Government Contract Costs & Pricing — the two references for FAR Part 31 and CAS work
  • Steven W. Feldman, Government Contract Awards: Negotiation and Sealed Bidding
  • The Nash & Cibinic Report and The Government Contractor (Thomson Reuters) — monthly analysis practitioners actually read
  • Public Contract Law Journal (ABA Section of Public Contract Law / George Washington University) — the field's principal journal; Briefing Papers for practical monographs
  • GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (the "Red Book") — indispensable for funding, bona fide needs, and Antideficiency Act questions
  • GAO, Bid Protest Annual Report to Congress — the source for sustain and effectiveness rates
  • GAO and Board decisions, searchable and free: GAO's docket, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
  • SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decisions — the operative law of affiliation, size, and NAICS appeals
  • DCAA Contract Audit Manual; DoD Source Selection Procedures; the Contract Pricing Reference Guides
  • Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee annual report to Congress — how exclusion decisions are actually made
  • Congressional Research Service reports on protests, set-asides, and acquisition reform; Administrative Conference of the United States recommendations on procurement adjudication

Appendix A — Problem to Mechanism

Find the row. The mechanism, the clock, and the forum follow from it.

Situation Mechanism Clock Forum
Solicitation is ambiguous or unduly restrictive Question, then pre-award protest Before proposals are due Agency, GAO, or CFC
Wrong NAICS code assigned NAICS appeal 10 calendar days from issuance or amendment SBA OHA
Awardee is not actually small Size protest 5 business days from notice of apparent awardee CO → SBA Area Office → OHA
Awardee's socioeconomic status is doubtful Status protest 5 business days CO → SBA program office → OHA
Evaluation was unequal or used unstated criteria Post-award protest 10 days from knowledge; shorter to hold the stay GAO or CFC
Discussions were not meaningful Post-award protest Same GAO or CFC
Order exceeds the scope of the competed vehicle Scope challenge 10 days from knowledge GAO or CFC
Order under a vehicle, no scope issue, below threshold Generally barred — —
Agency's corrective action is unreasonable Protest of the corrective action 10 days from announcement GAO or CFC
Agency overrode the CICA stay Override challenge Immediately CFC
COR directed extra work Same-day notice; constructive change Clause notice period CO, then claim
Site conditions differ from those indicated Differing site conditions notice Before conditions are disturbed CO, then claim
Government delayed performance Suspension of work / delay claim Clause notice period CO, then claim
Negotiation has stalled and interest matters Convert REA to certified claim Within 6 years of accrual CO final decision
CO issued a final decision denying the claim Appeal 90 days (board) or 12 months (CFC) ASBCA/CBCA or CFC
Contract terminated for default Appeal the default 90 days / 12 months ASBCA/CBCA or CFC
Contract terminated for convenience Settlement proposal; then claim Per the clause CO, then board or CFC
Adverse CPARS rating Comment, then CDA claim Comment window, then 6 years CO, then board or CFC
Credible evidence of fraud or an FCA violation Mandatory disclosure to the OIG Timely — no safe delay Agency OIG
Show cause or suspension notice received Present-responsibility submission Per the notice, usually 30 days Suspending and debarring official

Appendix B — Deadline Triage

Answer these in order. Getting any of them wrong is usually fatal and rarely curable.

  1. Is a solicitation defect patent? If yes, the only window is before the closing time for proposals. Blue & Gold Fleet.
  2. When did the client first know a protest basis? The 10-day clock runs from knowledge, not from the debriefing's conclusion.
  3. Is a debriefing required and requested? If yes, protest within 10 days of the debriefing — but file by the shorter date that preserves the CICA automatic stay.
  4. Is this an order under a multiple-award vehicle? If yes, is the protest statutorily barred, and if not, is GAO the exclusive forum?
  5. Is a size or status protest available? Five business days from notice of the apparent successful offeror. There is no extension.
  6. Is a NAICS appeal still open? Ten calendar days from solicitation issuance or the amendment that changed it.
  7. Which forum? GAO for the stay and speed; the Court of Federal Claims for a broader record, an appeal, and no 100-day cap.
  8. Can prejudice be shown — a substantial chance of award but for the error? If not, do not file.
  9. On the performance side, what notice does the clause require, and has it run? Changes, differing site conditions, suspension of work, and stop-work each have their own.
  10. Is the demand within six years of accrual, and when did accrual actually occur?
  11. REA or certified claim? Weigh interest and finality against unallowable prosecution costs and the fraud overlay — then document the choice.
  12. If certifying: does every dollar trace to a cost record, and is the certifier authorized to bind the company?
  13. After a final decision: 90 days to a board, 12 months to the Court of Federal Claims. These are not extendable.
  14. Is there credible evidence triggering mandatory disclosure, and who owns that decision, on what date?
  15. Is any principal or affiliate excluded, and has SAM been checked today rather than at registration?

Related Documents

Articles

Guides

Checklists

Toolkits