31 U.S.C. § 3556
Nonexclusivity of remedies; matters included in agency record
This subchapter does not give the Comptroller General exclusive jurisdiction over protests, and nothing contained in this subchapter shall affect the right of any interested party to file a protest with the contracting agency or to file an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims. In any such action based on a procurement or proposed procurement with respect to which a protest has been filed under this subchapter, the reports required by sections 3553(b)(2) and 3554(e)(1) of this title with respect to such procurement or proposed procurement and any decision or recommendation of the Comptroller General under this subchapter with respect to such procurement or proposed procurement shall be considered to be part of the agency record subject to review.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases, 1984–2020 · leading case: Glenn Def. Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Glenn Def. Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “31 U.S.C. § 3556 . In a case involving a post-award conflict of interest investigation and analysis, this court noted that courts “reviewing bid protests rou- tinely consider .”
Cubic Applications, Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 339 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “31 U.S.C. § 3556 . Moreover, while acknowledging the “advisory nature” of such a recommendation, in view of the expertise of the GAO in procurement matters, this court may rely upon such a decision for general guidance to the extent it is reasonable and persuasive in light of…”
Crassociates, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 357 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “” But, nothing in this statute, or any other authority, for that matter, requires the court to give the CO’s statement any independent, let alone dispositive, weight.”
Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 496 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3556 . Further, to the extent that the agency relied upon GAO’s decision as a basis for taking corrective action, GAO’s decision is pivotal for the Court’s review of the agency’s procurement decision.”
Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc., 870 F.2d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “” 31 U.S.C. § 3556 . Although “[t]hese provisions do not compel procuring agencies to obey the recommendation of the Comptroller General,” their effect “is to compel procurement officials to make purchase decisions in light of what the Comptroller General recommends the…”
Am. Auto Logistics, Lp v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 137 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3556 (2012) (In any action in front of the United States Court of Federal Claims, “the reports required by sections 3553 (b)(2) [the agency’s report to the GAO in a bid protest] and 3554 (e)(1) [the United States Comptroller General’s report to Congress in…”
Mike Hooks, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 147 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “31 U.S.C. § 3556 makes clear that in any action in this court *158 based on a procurement or proposed procurement with respect to which a[GAO] protest has been filed under this subchap-ter, the reports required by section 3553(b)(2) and 3554(e)(1) of this title with respect to…”
Vanguard Recovery Assistance v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 765 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “GAO’s decisions have been included in the record of the procurement as required by 31 U.S.C. § 3556 . See Vanguard, 99 Fed.Cl.”
S.K.J. & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3556 . GAO’s protest jurisdiction is defined by CICA.”
Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 656 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3556 (2012) (indicating that the GAO does not have “exclusive jurisdiction over protests” and that interested parties may file bid protests with the procuring agency or the Court of Federal Claims).”
Delta Data Sys. Corp. v. William H. Webster, Dir., Fed. Bureau of Investigation, & Sys. Dev. Corp., (Two Cases), 744 F.2d 197 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “(to be codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3556 ). In short, we regard the assessment of the GAO as an expert opinion, which we should prudently consider but to which we have no obligation to defer.”
Vanguard Recovery Assistance v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 81 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “31 U.S.C. § 3556 . Accordingly, whatever materials were before GAO shall also be incorporated into the administrative record before the court.”
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.