Contractors tracking the government’s growing reliance on Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) and the rollout of the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) should take note of Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest decisions interpreting the new rules.
A recent GAO decision addressed whether the consolidation analysis that agencies must complete before bundling under RFO Section 7.107-2 applies when the resulting vehicle is a BPA. In FedWriters, Inc., B-424376 (June 23, 2026), the GAO dismissed a protest challenging the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s decision to consolidate communications support services, holding that the plain language of the governing consolidation provision does not apply to BPAs.
Below, we summarize GAO’s decision and highlight the key takeaways for contractors.
FedWriters, Inc., B-424376 (June 23, 2026)
The NSF historically acquired various communications support services—such as graphic design, administration and program support, audio and video project support, and writing and editorial services—through separate contract vehicles. FedWriters, the Protester, was the incumbent contractor providing writing and editorial support. When the agency moved to consolidate its needs, it issued a solicitation for a multiple-award BPA for “comprehensive communications support,” set aside for women-owned small businesses (WOSBs), with a total estimated value of $62.6 million.
Notably, the protest at issue arose from the agency’s second attempt at this procurement. FedWriters protested an earlier version of the solicitation. After the NSF took corrective action by canceling and re-soliciting, GAO dismissed that first protest as academic. As part of its corrective action, the NSF conducted new market research, found potentially 65 capable WOSBs, and prepared a written memorandum justifying the consolidation, even while noting its belief that it “may not have to justify its consolidation at the BPA award stage.” The agency concluded that the benefits of consolidation “substantially exceed[ed]” those of any alternative approach.
FedWriters protested again. In its second protest, FedWriters argued that the agency’s justification failed to show that the benefits of consolidation substantially exceeded the advantages of alternative contracting approaches, as required by Section 7.107-2 of the RFO.
Rather than resolving whether the agency’s justification was reasonable, GAO cut to a threshold question by asking whether any justification was required at all. The answer turned out to be no.
GAO explained that Section 7.107-2 implements the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which requires agencies to weigh the effect on small businesses of consolidating certain contract requirements over $2 million, including conducting market research, identifying less-consolidated alternatives, and making a written “necessary and justified” determination. But GAO noted that the operative definitions tie those obligations to “contracts,” and that GAO has repeatedly held that a BPA is not a “contract” as defined by the FAR. Based on this analysis, GAO concluded that Section 7.107-2 of the RFO did not apply to the BPA in question and dismissed the protest as factually and legally insufficient.
A notable aspect of the decision concerns an issue that GAO did not ultimately reach. In 2023, the SBA amended its regulations implementing the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to expressly apply the consolidation requirements to BPAs. When GAO invited supplemental briefing, the Protester pivoted, arguing for the first time that the SBA’s amendment should control. However, GAO rejected the argument as untimely because the Protester had not raised the issue in its initial protest. As a result, GAO did not make a determination as to what legal effect the SBA amendment would have on the protest.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
The primary takeaway from the FedWriters decision is that, although the consolidation rule in RFO Section 7.107-2 imposes heightened justification requirements when an agency consolidates work, those requirements do not apply when the resulting procurement vehicle is a BPA. Contractors facing procurements that combine multiple requirements through a BPA should understand that the RFO consolidation protections are likely not available, and as a result, agencies will have more flexibility to consolidate work without the same level of justification required for contracts.
That said, there is potentially an open question as to whether a protester can challenge consolidation based on the 2023 SBA amendment to its regulation that expressly applies the consolidation requirements to BPAs. As noted above, GAO did not resolve that issue because it was untimely raised by the Protester. Accordingly, contractors and bid protest counsel alike should continue to monitor this developing area of law.