4 C.F.R. § 21.7

Hearings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Upon a request filed by a party or on its own initiative, GAO may conduct a hearing in connection with a protest. The request shall set forth the reasons why a hearing is needed to resolve the protest.

(b) Prior to the hearing, GAO may hold a pre-hearing conference to discuss and resolve matters such as the procedures to be followed, the issues to be considered, and the witnesses who will testify.

(c) Hearings generally will be conducted as soon as practicable after receipt by the parties of the agency report and relevant documents. Although hearings ordinarily will be conducted at GAO in Washington, DC, hearings may, at the discretion of GAO, be conducted at other locations, or by telephone or other electronic means.

(d) All parties participating in the protest shall be invited to attend the hearing. Others may be permitted to attend as observers and may participate as allowed by GAO's hearing official. In order to prevent the improper disclosure of protected information at the hearing, GAO's hearing official may restrict attendance during all or part of the proceeding.

(e) GAO does not provide for hearing transcripts. If the parties wish to have a hearing transcribed, they may do so at their own expense, so long as a copy of the transcript is provided to GAO at the parties' expense.

(f) If a witness whose attendance has been requested by GAO fails to attend the hearing or fails to answer a relevant question, GAO may draw an inference unfavorable to the party for whom the witness would have testified.

(g) If a hearing is held, each party shall file comments with GAO within 5 days after the hearing was held or as specified by GAO. If the protester has not filed comments by the due date, GAO shall dismiss the protest.

(h) In post-hearing comments, the parties should reference all testimony and admissions in the hearing record that they consider relevant, providing specific citations to the testimony and admissions referenced.

[61 FR 39042, July 26, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 79836, Dec. 31, 2002; 83 FR 13825, Apr. 2, 2018]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1988–2002 · leading case: Jones & Artis Constr. Co. v. Dist. of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., 549 A.2d 315 (D.C. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones & Artis Constr. Co. v. Dist. of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., 549 A.2d 315 (D.C. 1988). · cites it 2× “IV 1986); 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.7 , 21.8 (1988). In contrast, "appeals" are customarily limited to issues of contract performance (or to suspension or debarment of a firm).”

Cubic Applications, Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 339 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “See 4 C.F.R. § 21.7 (1996). It chose not to do so, weakening its contention that their testimony is essential.”

Mark Dunning Indus., Inc. v. Cheney, 726 F. Supp. 810 (M.D. Ala. 1989). “” 4 CFR § 21.7 (b). The Act, however, explicitly requires that, if the GAO chooses to award a contract, the award must be “consistent with the requirements” of the relevant statute.”

Advance Constr. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 362 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “407, by allegedly conducting a de novo review of the reasonableness of the agency’s decision to allow correction of a mistake in bid rather than a review of the administrative record; and (3) violated 4 C.F.R. § 21.7 (2001), which authorizes the GAO to conduct protest hearings,…”

Com. Energies, Inc. v. Cheney, 745 F. Supp. 647 (D. Colo. 1990). “4 C.F.R. § 21.7 . Under the Competition in Contracting Act, 31 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.