31 U.S.C. § 3552

Protests by interested parties concerning procurement actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A protest concerning an alleged violation of a procurement statute or regulation shall be decided by the Comptroller General if filed in accordance with this subchapter.(b)(1) In the case of an agency tender official who is an interested party under section 3551(2)(B) of this title, the official may file a protest in connection with the public-private competition for which the official is an interested party. At the request of a majority of the employees of the Federal agency who are engaged in the performance of the activity or function subject to such public-private competition, the official shall file a protest in connection with such public-private competition unless the official determines that there is no reasonable basis for the protest.(2) The determination of an agency tender official under paragraph (1) whether or not to file a protest is not subject to administrative or judicial review. An agency tender official shall provide written notification to Congress whenever the official makes a determination under paragraph (1) that there is no reasonable basis for a protest.(Added Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VII, § 2741(a), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1199; amended Pub. L. 103–272, § 4(f)(1)(L), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1362; Pub. L. 103–355, title X, § 10005(d), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3408; Pub. L. 104–106, div. E, title LVI, § 5603, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 700; Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title III, § 326(b), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1848.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–375 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1996—Pub. L. 104–106 struck out at end “An interested party who has filed a protest under section 111(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 759(f)) with respect to a procurement or proposed procurement may not file a protest with respect to that procurement under this subchapter.”

1994—Pub. L. 103–272 and Pub. L. 103–355 amended section identically, substituting “section 111(f)” for “section 111(h)” and “759(f)” for “759(h)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2004 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–375 applicable to protests filed under this subchapter that relate to studies initiated under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 on or after the end of the 90-day period beginning on Oct. 28, 2004, see section 326(d) of Pub. L. 108–375, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–106 effective 180 days after Feb. 10, 1996, see section 5701 of Pub. L. 104–106, div. E, title LVII, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 702.

Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

For effective date and applicability of amendment by Pub. L. 103–355, see section 10001 of Pub. L. 103–355, set out as a note under section 8752 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to any protest filed after Jan. 14, 1985, see section 2751(b) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 4751 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

Construction of 2004 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–375 not to be construed to authorize the use of a protest under this subchapter with regard to a decision made by an agency tender official, see section 326(e) of Pub. L. 108–375, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States (2016) scotus “See 31 U.S.C. § 3552 (a). Kingdomware alleged that the Department procured multiple contracts through the FSS without restricting competition using the Rule of Two, as required by § 8127.”

Caci, Inc.-Federal v. United States (2023) cafc “§ 3708 (a)(1); 31 U.S.C. § 3552 (a); 4 C.F.R. 2 A protestor may also file a protest directly with the contracting officer, as established by Executive Order No.”

Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States (2011) uscfc “31 U.S.C. § 3552 (a) (2006). These statutes require the GAO to establish procedures for the “expeditious” resolution of the protests.”

Validata Chemical Services v. United States Department of Energy (2016) dcd “31 U.S.C. § 3552 (b). In contrast, ADRA merely permits the specified agency official or a federal-employee representative to intervene in an action brought by *84 “an interested party who is a member of the private sector.”

Centech Group, Inc. v. United States (2007) uscfc “” 31 U.S.C. § 3552 . If a protest is sustained, CICA permits GAO to recommend an appropriate remedy “to promote compliance with procurement statutes and regulations,” which may include ordering a new solicitation, terminating the contract, limiting the existing contract to bring…”

John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy v. Sherwood Van Lines, Inc. (1995) cafc ““Spot movement” GBL-based procurements are also not subject to the Comptroller General’s bid protest jurisdiction under the Competition in Contracting Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3552 , see Matter of Moody Bros, of Jacksonville, Inc.”

Raytheon Company v. United States (2015) uscfc “at 713 (referring to 31 U.S.C. § 3552 (a), 31 U.S.C. § 3555 (a), 4 C.”

Avtel Services, Inc. v. Unites States (2005) uscfc “§ 423 (f)(6); 31 U.S.C. § 3552 (2000). Furthermore, the Act provides that the Comptroller General of the United States may consider such a protest alleging a violation of the Procurement Integrity Act if the complainant filed its protest no later than fourteen days after first…”

Colonial Press International, Inc. v. United States (2015) cafc “GAO Protest and the Question of SBA Referral Under 31 U.S.C. § 3552 , a disappointed bidder for a government contract may appeal the decision of the agency by filing a protest with the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).”

Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United States (2003) uscfc “at 3 (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3552 (2002)). Indeed, the government relied on plaintiffs lowest bid to award the various contracts now in dispute.”

Dairy Maid Dairy, Inc. v. United States (1993) vaed “Near the end of the 1001 Contract, CIC and Dairy Maid competed for award of the 3216 Contract and, after the 3216 Contract was awarded to Dairy Maid, CIC filed a protest with the Comptroller General of the United States (“GAO”) under 31 U.S.C. § 3552 (Supp.1993). As required by…”

Electronic Data Systems Federal Corporation v. General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (1986) cafc “31 U.S.C. § 3552 (Supp. II 1984) provides that "[a]n interested party who has filed a protest under .”

Show all 19 citing cases →

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.