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 several protest decisions issued in May that provide helpful insights about the GAO protest process.
May 2025 was another drought month when it came to sustains at GAO. This is not the first time the agency has gone an entire month without issuing a single sustained decision: we noted similar drought months in February 2023, October 2023, July 2024, and February 2025. Therefore, as we have done in the past, we examine the other end of the spectrum: dismissal decisions. The vast majority of GAO’s dismissal decisions are unpublished (or in GAO-speak, “undigested”). For example, GAO dismissed 67 protests in May 2025, but digested only three of them. Most dismissal decisions consist of less than a page of text and adopt standard language explaining the basis for common procedural deficiencies, such as untimeliness, lack of jurisdiction, or lack of interested party status.
However, dismissal decisions can provide helpful guidance to both agencies and outside counsel when pursuing or defending against a dismissal request. In this context, practitioners have voiced frustration that the body of caselaw addressing dismissal arguments is relatively thin as compared to the robust body of precedent addressing substantive protest issues. In recognition of the utility of its dismissal decisions, GAO has, over the past several years, increased its issuance of “digested” dismissals – dismissal decisions that are published and available to the public. By way of comparison: GAO did not digest any of its dismissal decisions in May 2020, whereas it issued three digested dismissals in May 2025. This month’s digested dismissal decisions were: A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc., Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, and Perimeter Solutions LP.
In A2A Integrated Logistics, A2A filed an agency-level protest, which was dismissed as untimely. A2A then filed a GAO protest. GAO ruled A2A’s protest was untimely, since the agency-level protest was submitted late. Significantly, GAO noted that even though FAR 33.103(b) encourages parties to use “best efforts to resolve concerns,” this provision does not extend the time for filing an agency-level protest. As we noted in our discussion of the A2A Integrated Logistics decision here, this dismissal decision underscores the risks of informal agency communication before protesting, as such interactions can inadvertently cut into GAO protest deadlines.
In Raven Investigations, GAO dismissed a protest because it had become “academic” (moot) where the agency had terminated the order that was the subject of the protest. As we discussed here, however, the decision was notable, not for its discussion of mootness, but for its discussion of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal work. Noting that the protester’s briefing included several hallucinated case citations (that is, citations to decisions that do not exist and incorrect assertions about the contents of decisions that do exist), GAO stressed that the use of AI tools to draft pleadings without double checking the AI-generated assertions “wastes the time of all parties and GAO, and is at odds with the statutory mandate that our bid protest forum provide for ‘the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of protests.’”
Finally, in Perimeter Solutions, GAO dismissed the protest of a firm challenging a sole-source award because the company was not an “interested party” to pursue the protest. Interested party status is similar to the concept of “standing” in traditional litigation. In Perimeter Solutions, the protester challenged the Forest Service’s sole-source procurement of a long-term fire retardant named “Qela” that would be used to conduct an official field evaluation assessing whether Qela should receive full qualification for placement on the government’s qualified products list. Perimeter protested, arguing that the government should instead procure and test Perimeter’s own fire retardant. However, GAO dismissed the protest, finding that Perimeter was not an interested party to pursue the protest. First, GAO noted that the government needed to test Qela—a product not available from Perimeter. Second, although Perimeter also manufactured a fire retardant that it wished to undergoing testing and approval, Perimeter’s product had not yet passed preliminary “galvanic corrosion testing” that served as a prerequisite to official field evaluation testing. For these reasons, Perimeter would not have been qualified for award even if GAO sustained the protest. May’s three digested dismissal decisions serve as a valuable resource for practitioners by shedding light on procedural intricacies within the bid protest process. Along with GAO’s growing body of dismissal decisions, these cases provide clarity and guidance on the procedural grounds necessary for a successful protest, thereby enhancing practitioners’ ability to navigate this unique type of litigation. By understanding the reasons behind dismissals, practitioners can better prepare their cases, avoid common pitfalls, and effectively advocate for their clients’ interests. Ultimately, these decisions contribute to a more informed and strategic approach to bid protests.