Sunset Provision Eliminates the Right to Protest Civilian Task Orders Over $10M

Starting October 1, and ending whenever Congress passes the 2017 NDAA, you can no longer protest civilian agency task orders, no matter the value, except in very limited circumstances that almost never occur.


It’s conventional wisdom that you can’t protest task order awards under $10M, but you can protest task order awards over $10M.

This conventional wisdom has a basis in law. Specifically, for Department of Defense contracts, 41 USC 4106, and for civilian agency contracts, 10 USC 2304c.

These two sections of the law are identical as regards task order protests – they both say to start that you cannot protest task order awards. But, that you can protest a task order award above $10M, and GAO has exclusive jurisdiction over those task order protests, and you can protest a task order in other very limited circumstances (that almost never occur).

The civilian law, though, contains a very important additional clause. It contains a sunset provision that eliminates the right to protest a task order over $10M as of September 30, meaning that after that date you can’t protest task order awards at all (except in limited circumstances, etc., etc.)


Congress, both House and Senate, have clauses in the 2017 NDAA that remove the sunset clause and restore the clause that allows you to protest task orders over $10M at the GAO.

By way of background, the “NDAA” is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is the bill that funds the Department of Defense, and of critical importance to federal contractors, it is often (along with the Small Business Act) the primary means by which Congress makes changes to the laws regarding federal contractors.

Reaching way back to remembering how a bill becomes a law, the House and Senate each pass their versions of a bill, then get together in what is called “conference” to work out any differences. Once those differences are worked out, the revised bill is approved again by both the House and Senate, and goes to the President for signature or veto. If the President signs the bill, it becomes a law.

Right now, both the House and Senate have passed their versions of the 2017 NDAA, and the bill is in conference for the differences between the two versions to be worked out. But…it’s an election year, and things move very slowly in Congress during an election year.

Of note, the Senate version of the 2017 NDAA makes huge changes to the GAO bid protest rules. Huge changes worthy of discussion, but that’s beyond the scope of this post, and it remains to be seen whether those changes will make it out of conference into the joint bill.


Yep. In 2011 the same thing happened. There existed a sunset clause in both the civilian and DoD versions of the law, except that sunset clause eliminated the entire prohibition on task order protests, meaning that for a period of time you could protest any task order – civilian or DoD, of any value – in any forum Agency, GAO, or Court of Federal Claims.

The 2012 NDAA reinstated the task order prohibition and the $10M exception and removed the sunset clause from the DoD version of the law, while setting the civilian sunset to 2016, and making the civilian sunset only apply to the $10M exception.

And here we are.


You can always protest on the grounds that the task order increases the scope of the IDIQ, the period of the IDIQ, or the maximum value of the IDIQ. You’ve always been able to bring those protests in any one of the three protest forums – GAO, Agency, or Court of Federal Claims. And none of that changes.

But situations where a task order increases the value or the period of an IDIQ are almost non-existent, and situations where a task order increases the scope of an IDIQ are extremely rare.

So while you still have recourse in those situations, those situations don’t happen that often.


Just keep in mind that beginning October 1 for some undefined period of time, likely at least until after the election in November, and possibly through the winter, you can’t protest civilian task order awards for any of the run of the mill reasons that you’ll commonly see in government procurements.

Be extra careful in your civilian procurements this fall and winter and know that for some period of time you will have no recourse if you think you’ve been treated unfairly.

If you have questions about this or other government contract issues, don’t hesitate to contact Christopher Shiplett or Danielle Hart for assistance.

contact C


Check your HUBZone Status

In 2011 and 2012, as a follow up to the 2010 Census data collection, the SBA removed a large number of former HUBZones from the HUBZone designation. Because the SBA did not want to decertify HUBZone companies without giving those companies an opportunity to transition their operations, the SBA created a HUBZone status called “redesignated” for those former HUBZones that were losing their HUBZone status, and then gave HUBZone companies in those “redesignated” areas a three year grace period to move operations and re-confirm that they conformed to the HUBZone requirements. For nearly 600 companies, that three year grace period ends in 2015.

First, a little background on the HUBZone program. This program began with the HUBZone Empowerment Act, which became law as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. The SBA regulates and implements the program, which includes: determining what businesses are eligible to enter the HUBZone Program, maintaining a database of qualified HUBZone businesses, and adjudicating protests and issues related to the award of HUBZone contracts.  The SBA designates areas as HUBZone areas based on information from several sources including, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Census Bureau.

In 2000 and again in 2004 the Small Business Reauthorization Act was amended, both amendments allowing for businesses to maintain their status in the “redesignated areas.” These amendments also allowed for the 3 year grace period.

The three year window on this transition is now about to close.  As a result, the nearly 600 small businesses located within these areas are set to lose their HUBZone status and the associated federal contracting benefits. There is no formal program to notify HUBZone companies of the potential future status of current, and “redesignated” HUBZones. If you are a HUBZone company, it is your responsibility to monitor the current and potential future status of the HUBZone within which your primary business location is located, and the HUBZones within which your employees live. Failing to do this could result in your business unintentionally losing its HUBZone status, whether from this specific “redesignation” or generally from some other redesignation of HUBZones.

While many HUBZones are only reviewed every 10 years, after the census, some are reviewed more frequently, in some cases as often as annually. To be safe regarding your HUBZone status, you should monitor your status bi-annually in a general sense, and should specifically review your compliance with HUBZone requirements every time you submit a HUBZone proposal, and every time you are awarded a HUBZone contract. The SBA’s HUBZone mape is a very useful tool in monitoring compliance, not only showing current HUBZones, but also each HUBZone’s history, and if known, any future planned changes in the zone’s status.

You can find the HUBZone map tool here: <a href=’http://map.sba.gov/hubzone/maps/’>http://map.sba.gov/hubzone/maps/</a>

While the possibility of a HUBZone designated area losing such status is cause for concern, HUBZone certification still offers many benefits and is considerably easier to gain access to than the other SBA small business concerns. If your firm is interested in becoming HUBZone certified or if your firm is facing issues because of expiring HUBZone designations or redesignated HUBZone districts and you would like assistance, please contact us.


Basics of Federal Contracting Series, Part I – Proposal Basics

This is part one of a series on the basics of Federal Government Contracting. Stay tuned for Part II – Pricing Methods, next week.

The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss pointers on preparing a successful government contract proposal. This article will also discuss contract pricing related to government contracts.

Preparing a response to a government procurement request is an important task, which should be approached with diligence and professionalism. Writing a successful proposal is about doing knowing the objective of the solicitation, preparing and responding clearly and appropriately, aligning your proposal with the government’s needs and articulating what makes you the best solution provider. These elements are critical to successful proposal writing.

First, it is crucial to carefully read the solicitation, including all applicable schedules, clauses and attachments. The solicitation is designed to provide prospective bidders with all of the information needed to write a successful proposal. The agency that prepared the solicitation expects you to read and follow it carefully. The reality is, if you do not comply with all requirements in the solicitation, your proposal may be deemed “nonresponsive”.  Also of equal importance is to review and understand the FAR regulations governing the specific type of solicitation. FAR regulations are completed and it is always best to have a team of people who are well versed to assist with proposals.

A good proposal will clearly articulate how the bidder can solve the problem or fill the need outlined in the government’s solicitation. Understanding the government’s needs is important. Even more important, however is how your company plans to execute or deliver an appropriate solution. It is, after all about convincing a government review panel that your proposal solves a specific problem or need and is the best fit.  Your proposal must be clear, concise and be able to substantiate the work to be performed. Some of the mistakes to be avoided are (1) mistakes in understanding the solicitation request and overall regulations that come into play (2) incomplete or late submission (3) unclear objectives and focus; too much fluff and not substance (4) not understanding best value considerations (5) unrealistic pricing (6) failure to address evaluation factors and (6) errors in the submission.

Contract pricing is an important aspect of procurement and a particularly important component in developing a strategy to win federal contracts. There are two factors that should be taken into consideration when discussing contract pricing and these are:

Government’s perspective- Understand that the federal government wants an optimal deal which is fair and reasonable for which the contracting officers and agencies conduct considerable market research.

Contractor’s perspective-A small company wanting to do business with the government is responsible for developing a contract pricing strategy that is reasonable, competitive, but profitable. Pricing therefore becomes one of the most important variables in a proposal.


The pricing you propose in response to a government solicitation will be influenced by your ability to negotiate or not negotiate as some contracts are negotiable contracts while others are sealed- bid contracts. The FAR states that any contract awarded using other than sealed bidding procedures is considered a negotiated contract. Procedures for contracting by sealed bidding (FAR 14) require the government to evaluate bids without discussions and award to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids; will be most advantageous to the government considering only price and price related factors. Negotiations are not permitted prior to the contract award.

Procedures for contracting by negotiation (FAR 15) permit negotiations prior to contract award. However, a solicitation under procedures for contracting by negotiation may or may not actually include negotiations.

The four types of contract pricing are (1) product pricing (2) service pricing (3) best value pricing and (4) lowest price technically acceptable.

  • The formula for product pricing is a sum of material costs, labor costs, estimated overhead expenses and profit margin. [Product pricing= Material Costs + Labor Costs + Overhead Expenses + Profit].
  • The formula for service pricing is based on the sum hourly overhead expense, hourly wage and profit. [Service pricing=Hourly Overhead Expense + Hourly Wage + Profit].
  • “Best Value” refers to competitive, negotiated procurements in which the Government reserves the right to select the most advantageous offer to the Government by evaluating and comparing factors in addition to cost or price. “Best Value” procurement enables the Government to purchase technical superiority even if it means paying a premium price.
  • “Lowest price technically acceptable” is where a contract award is made solely on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

As discussed above, writing a government contract proposal requires a thorough understanding of various agency rules and FAR regulations. The Attorneys at Randolph Law have extensive knowledge and understanding of the FAR regulations and can assist you with submitting a successful proposal.


Are Your Ready For 8(a) Certification?


The Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Certification is a special set-aside program for small businesses owned by disadvantaged individuals to help them compete with bigger businesses. Essentially, some government contracts require a percentage of the work to be given to 8(a)-Certified small businesses. This means that when your small business bids on the 8(a) work in a contract, you would only be competing with other 8(a)-Certified businesses for the work and not the entire pool of applicants. Because there are fewer fish in this 8(a) pond, the chances of winning a bid are considerably higher. However, just because you’re a small business doesn’t mean that you can easily get 8(a) Certification.

What is the SBA looking for?

Socially AND Economically Disadvantaged Owner

Social Disadvantage

The SBA states that “Under federal law, socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identification as members of groups without regard to their individual qualities.” Social disadvantage is presumed for Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Subcontinent Asian American. This only means that individuals from these groups do not need to write a narrative explaining why they are socially disadvantage. Individuals outside of these groups can also be socially disadvantaged, but must present convincing evidence in a written narrative that the SBA evaluates on a case-by-case basis. There are three critical elements that must be present in these situations:

  1. An objective (e.g., observable) feature that distinguishes you from others,
  2. Personal experiences of social disadvantage (e.g., discrimination) in American society because of that distinguishing feature, and
  3. A negative impact on getting jobs or advancing your career because of that distinguishing feature.

Economic Disadvantage

The SBA states that “economically disadvantaged individuals are [those] whose ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities.” Unlike social disadvantage, there is no presumption of economic disadvantage for individuals and all who apply must write a narrative explaining their economic disadvantage. These narratives are often very similar to social disadvantage narratives, but must demonstrate that a lack of assets or credit inhibited your ability to get jobs, advance your career, or compete with other businesses.

Tips for Writing the Narratives

Make it personal! Reliving the past can be painful, but the SBA needs to know exactly how you’ve been hurt in order to compel them to give help you by awarding 8(a) Certification.

Be detailed! Generic statements about being discriminated or disadvantaged is not persuasive. Your narrative must include facts about your life. There may never be concrete evidence of discrimination if someone is good at hiding it, but the SBA needs you to provide enough evidence so that they can plausibly connect the dots.

Small Business WITH a Likelihood of Success

Ownership and Control

The disadvantaged individual must directly own at least 51% of the business. There can be no shell companies in between and there can be no restrictions or conditions on the ownership. The disadvantaged owner must work full-time as the small business’s highest office and run the business’s day-to-day operations. If a non-disadvantaged individual can give the disadvantaged owner directives or make independent business decisions without the disadvantaged owner’s consent, watch out, because the SBA may decide that you don’t exercise direct control over your company. Typical delegation of duties is fine, though, because those duties have essentially been pre-approved by the disadvantaged owner.

“Small” Business

The limit on your business’s size all depends on the type of business you’re in. Get your NAICS code and head over to https://www.sba.gov/tools/size-standards-tool to see if you qualify. Some industries are limited by the number of employees while others are limited by the average annual receipts. In fact, “small” can still be quite large. For example, a Personal Computer Manufacturer (NAICS Code: 334111) is a small business as long as it has fewer than 1000 employees, while an HVAC Contractor (NAICS Code: 238220) is a small business as long as it receives less than $15 Million annually in receipts. Even if you don’t think you’re a small business, it never hurts to check!

Likelihood of Success a.k.a. Small, But Not Too Small

Many 8(a) applicants expect the 8(a) Certification bring it work, which it very well might do, BUT the SBA is typically only willing to award certification to businesses that are likely to succeed, meaning businesses with a successful history of prior work. This is the chicken and the egg problem for many applicants. Without the 8(a) Certification it may be difficult to find work, but without a history of successful work, it may be difficult to get the 8(a) Certification.

How much work is enough? How many clients do you need? There are no concrete minimum numbers as applications are evaluated case-by-case, but the more you have, the more likely you are to get that 8(a) Certification.

Having only a few clients represents a unique problem for the SBA’s control requirement. Think of it like this:
Let’s say you only have one client. If you don’t do what that client asks, they will probably find another business to do the work, but without them you will make no money. So what do you do if you want to stay in business? Whatever the client asks you to do.

Your economic dependence on the client allows them to control you. It is extremely difficult to argue against this, and the best counter is simply to have multiple clients to spread the risk of losing one of them.

Is Your Business Ready?

Carefully consider the SBA’s requirements and decide if your business satisfies them. If you think you are close to meeting them, but are unsure, it may be worthwhile to simply apply anyway. In the worst case scenario, your application may be rejected and you would have to reapply next year. However, your time will not have been wasted because the application process may reveal SBA concerns that you may not have considered, or you may be surprised to find yourself 8(a)-Certified before you know it.


Bid Protests – How An Agency Evaluates Proposals

664179_Page_01-791x1024jpgKey to a contractor’s understanding of the bid protest process is understanding how an agency evaluates proposals in a sealed bid procurement, and what rights a contractor has to protest the agency’s evaluation. Take a look at the recent GAO decision in Gaver Technologies, Inc. www.gao.gov/assets/670/664179.pdf, and read both the facts and the legal analysis carefully. This is a rare decision where the GAO agreed that the Agency was unreasonable in its evaluation of the proposals.

The stock phrase in any GAO decision on a contractor’s claim that the selection was somehow “unfair” is a variation of “The GAO will not substitute its own judgment for the Agency’s,” and “Although the contractor may not agree with the Agency’s technical evaluation, mere disagreement with that evaluation is not a valid grounds for protest.” What that means is that just because a contractor may think the Agency’s decision is unfair, wrong, short-sighted, or any other thing calls into question the Agency’s judgment or skill in selecting vendors, doesn’t mean the contractor has a valid protest grounds. For the contractor to have valid grounds for a protest, the Agency’s decision must be so unfair, so wrong, so short-sighted, or so whatever that is is “unreasonable.” Or, alternatively, and this is more likely, either (1) the Agency’s decision must be inconsistent with the “stated evaluation factors” – meaning that the Agency wrote in the RFP that it would evaluate based on a set of criteria and then evaluated based on an entirely different set of criteria, or (2) The Agency didn’t document the basis for its selection.

Turning to the Gaver Technologies decision by way of example: The solicitation was a NASA solicitation for professional, administrative, computational, and engineering (PACE) services. As part of the evaluation, the RFP stated that offerors would be evaluated based on their “Proposed innovative processes…the Offeror suggests for accomplishing…the tasks required in the SOW.”

To evaluate the proposals, NASA constituted a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) which reviewed all of the proposals and produced a written report and recommendation to a Source Selection Authority (SSA), the person tasked with making the decision on which contractor to award a contract to. This is the standard means by which an Agency evaluates proposals. There are variations on who constitutes the SEB, and there may be sub-boards, or multiple boards evaluating separate parts of the proposal (price, technical, management), but the general set-up of a group of people evaluating and then making a written recommendation with supporting documentation to a single person who makes the decision, is common.

The SEB evaluated Gaver positively on its innovative approaches, and pointed out specifically five innovations it felt were particularly strong. When that evaluation went to the SSA, she agreed that the innovations were strengths, but weighed against those strengths her concerns that the cost of implementing those innovations was not accounted for in the proposal, meaning that either the innovations would not be implemented or that the innovations would be implemented, but would cost the Agency money. Or, in my opinion, she thought the innovations without cost being factored in were either proposal fluff – promise the moon and then under-deliver once you have the contract – or were a “bait and switch” – promise the moon but under-price it, then go in and ask for a contract mod once you’ve got the contract.

Although the SSA discounted all of Gaver’s proposed innovations, she only specifically addressed a few of those innovations as examples. The GAO, unusually, granted a hearing for the purpose of determining in more detail what the SSA’s funding concerns were. At the hearing, the SSA identified a different basis for her decision that the innovations were not strengths, which was that the proposed innovations were not described in sufficient detail for a proper evaluation. At that same hearing, the SEB chair, in describing the SEB’s report to the SSA, stated that contrary to the SSA’s claim, the SEB’s evaluation of Gaver’s proposal had covered the costs associated with its proposed innovations, and had determined that (1) there would be no additional cost associated with implementing the innovations; and (2) That Gaver had stated that there would be no additional cost associated with implementing the innovations.

Given the SEB’s testimony and the written record that contradicted the SSA’s claim that there was no discussion or analysis of the cost of innovations, and the SSA’s own changing testimony that her real issue with Gaver’s proposed innovations was that they weren’t sufficiently detailed, the GAO determined that the SSA’s decision was unreasonable and was contrary to the stated RFP criteria which required a offeror be rewarded for offering innovative technical approaches, and therefore granted the protest.

It seems likely that the SSA had legitimate concerns about Gaver’s proposal of innovative approaches. Whether she thought they were “pie in the sky” type items that would never be implemented, and would detract from the real work NASA was hiring Gaver to do, or whether she thought they were good ideas but would cost more money, and that cost wasn’t revealed in the proposal, isn’t clear.

So with all that detailed discussion, what’s the take away? Two things – (1) A contractor is not likely to get a GAO decision on a protest overturning a technical evaluation. This decision is an exception that “proves the rule” in that the SSA’s decision was (a) contrary to the SEB recommendation; (b) unusually poorly documented; and (c) contradicted by the SSA’s own testimony. Most of the time, if a contractor thinks a decision was “unfair,” the contractor is out of luck. The decision has to be so “unfair” that it is unreasonable. (2) SEB recommendations and SSA decision memos are not available to contractors at the outset of a bid protest, so the contractor had to file the protest blind. The contractor may have had a belief that it had more than just an unfairness argument based on other information, or the contractor may have just decided it was worth the outlay to file the protest. Either way, it had to file blind, and it had to have an outside attorney to review the protected, selection sensitive, information.

All in all, a good decision to review for an understanding of the difference between a contractor believing it was evaluated unfairly, and an evaluation actually being deemed unreasonable or against the stated criteria.

If you have bid protest questions, call me or email me.

Chris Shiplett
Randolph Law, PLLC
(p) 703-652-3039
(e) chris.shiplett@randolphlawonline.com


What Do I Do With The Contracts? – Issues In Buying Or Selling A Government Contractor

I usually get the request after the buyer and the seller have agreed on a structure for a purchase or a merger and they are working through their due diligence and papering the deal: “Ok, we’re ready to go with this purchase (or sale), how do we transfer the contracts.”

Transferring the contracts should not be an afterthought in the deal, the transfer of the contracts should in many cases be the prime consideration, around which the deal is structured, because in many cases – and particularly for small contractors – the contracts themselves are the primary asset that brings value to the company being sold.

In general, the Anti-Assignment Act prohibits the transfer of government contracts to a third-party. However, there are exceptions to that blanket transfer prohibition. Those exceptions, and the rules for how to request approval of a transfer under those exceptions, are set out in the FAR at section 42.1204. A contractor that attempts a purchase or sale without thoroughly evaluating the rules of FAR 42.1204, and without conscientiously following the procedure described in that section, runs the very significant risk of having a request to transfer denied, or of having the contract cancelled, thereby risking the very asset that gives the company value.

The first question the parties to a transaction should consider is whether the transaction is such that the contracts are “being transferred” at all.

As described in FAR 42.1204, if there is a change of ownership of a contract “as a result of a stock purchase,” but there is no legal change in the contracting party, and the contracting party remains in control, there is no “transfer” of the contract such that the government must consent to the transfer.

However, if there is a stock purchase (or for a limited liability company or partnership the equivalent to a stock purchase), there may be other issues the contractor must consider. For example, if the contractor is certified in a set-aside program, is there still “direct ownership” by a qualified individual; If the contractor is subject to NISPOM regulation, are the security issues implicated by the transfer of ownership; For all contractors, does the change of ownership implicate responsibility issues that must be addressed; and etc. and etc.

If there is a direct asset purchase, then the contractor must consider the Anti-Assignment Act, and must appropriately seek out the exceptions to the prohibition on transfers. As described in FAR 42.1204, there are two situations in which the Government may consent to the transfer of a contract:

1) The contractor is transferring all of its assets; or

2) The contractor is transferring the entire portion of its assets involved in performing the contract.

In either of those cases, if the government consents, it will execute with the contractor what is called a “Novation Agreement” which will “novate” the contract, meaning substitute the new contractor for the old contractor in the agreement.

A contractor that wants a novation has to ask for it. Naturally, there is an appropriate way to do that. That is to submit a “novation package” to the contracting officer. As in any transaction between a contractor and the Government, the Government must have adequate documentation of the proposed transaction to allow the Contracting Officer to fulfill his or her duty not to obligate the Government recklessly or unlawfully. So, at a minimum, a novation package must contain the following:

(1) The document describing the proposed transaction, e.g., purchase/sale agreement or memorandum of understanding.

(2) A list of all affected contracts between the transferor and the Government, as of the date of sale or transfer of assets, showing for each, as of that date, the —

(i) Contract number and type;

(ii) Name and address of the contracting office;

(iii) Total dollar value, as amended; and

(iv) Approximate remaining unpaid balance.

(3) Evidence of the transferee’s capability to perform.

(4) Any other relevant information requested by the responsible contracting officer.

(f) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, the contractor shall submit to the responsible contracting officer one copy of each of the following documents, as applicable, as the documents become available:

(1) An authenticated copy of the instrument effecting the transfer of assets; e.g., bill of sale, certificate of merger, contract, deed, agreement, or court decree.

(2) A certified copy of each resolution of the corporate parties’ boards of directors authorizing the transfer of assets.

(3) A certified copy of the minutes of each corporate party’s stockholder meeting necessary to approve the transfer of assets.

(4) An authenticated copy of the transferee’s certificate and articles of incorporation, if a corporation was formed for the purpose of receiving the assets involved in performing the Government contracts.

(5) The opinion of legal counsel for the transferor and transferee stating that the transfer was properly effected under applicable law and the effective date of transfer.

(6) Balance sheets of the transferor and transferee as of the dates immediately before and after the transfer of assets, audited by independent accountants.

(7) Evidence that any security clearance requirements have been met.

(8) The consent of sureties on all contracts listed under paragraph (e)(2) of this section if bonds are required, or a statement from the transferor that none are required.

FAR 42.1204(e)

It’s a complicated process, and you want to get it right, and you want to make sure that the deal doesn’t get hung up waiting for novation.

If you want to ask us questions about novation agreements, the novation process, or how to think about your government contracting work in the context of a merger or an acquisition, please call or email me.

Chris Shiplett
Randolph Law, PLLC
(p) 703-652-3039
(e) chris.shiplett@randolphlawonline.com


The Value of Outside Counsel in GAO Bid Protests

If you protest to the Agency or to the GAO, You don’t have to have a lawyer represent you, but you probably should. Find out more about Randolph Law’s Bid Protest practice here.