4 C.F.R. § 21.9

Time for decision by GAO

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

(a) GAO shall issue a decision on a protest within 100 days after it is filed. GAO will attempt to resolve a request for recommendation for reimbursement of protest costs under § 21.8(e), a request for recommendation on the amount of protest costs under § 21.8(f), or a request for reconsideration under § 21.14 within 100 days after the request is filed.

(b) In protests where GAO uses the express option procedures in § 21.10, GAO shall issue a decision on a protest within 65 days after it is filed.

(c) GAO, to the maximum extent practicable, shall resolve a timely supplemental protest adding one or more new grounds to an existing protest, or a timely amended protest, within the time limit established in paragraph (a) of this section for decision on the initial protest. If a supplemental or an amended protest cannot be resolved within that time limit, GAO may resolve the supplemental or amended protest using the express option procedures in § 21.10.

[61 FR 39042, July 26, 1996, as amended at 83 FR 13825, Apr. 2, 2018]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: MorphoTrust USA, Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., 115 A.3d 571 (D.C. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MorphoTrust USA, Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., 115 A.3d 571 (D.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “0 (2008); 4 C.F.R. § 21.9 (2005). See also Kingdomware Tech.”

Cigna Gov't Servs., LLC v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 100 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “§ 3554 (a)(1) (2005); 4 C.F.R. § 21.9 (a) (2005). The Override On February 10, 2006, CMS issued an override of the CICA stay and directed Nori-dian and Palmetto to commence performance of the challenged contracts.”

PMTech, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 330 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “See 4 C.F.R. § 21.9 (2010) (providing that the GAO must render a decision on a bid protest within 100 days of the date on which it was filed).”

SDS Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 363 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “There is no specific irreparable injury to SDS, and any harm to SDS is outweighed by the harm that will be suffered by the United States.”

Leslie & Elliott Co., Inc. v. Garrett, 732 F. Supp. 191 (D.D.C. 1990). “Based upon these facts the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, directed that the matter be referred to GAO pursuant to 4 CFR § 21.9 for a decision without any change to the schedule required by statute, directed that the plaintiff file a brief in…”

Ameron, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 607 F. Supp. 962 (D.N.J. 1985). “Thus, to the extent that 4 C.F.R. Section 21.9 could be interpreted to require the Comptroller General to dismiss a protest that has not been withdrawn, merely because of the filing of a suit such as this, the provision would be contrary to law and could not be applied.”

Kropp Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “§ 3554 (a)(1); see also 4 C.F.R. § 21.9 (a) (requiring the GAO to “issue a decision on a protest within 100 days after it is filed.”

Sigmatech, Inc. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 792 (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 2× “4 C.F.R. 21.9 (Government Accountability Office Advisory Opinion).”

Harmonia Holdings Grp., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). “See 4 C.F.R. § 21.9 (a). 15 may be set aside only if they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”

Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). “Two days before Fluor would have received a decision in accordance with 4 C.F.R. § 21.9 (a) (2019), DynCorp International LLC (“DynCorp”) filed a directly related bid protest with this Court, and, as a 5 result, the GAO dismissed Fluor’s protests as academic.”

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.