Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

“Close Enough” Isn’t Good Enough: Protester’s “Homebrew” Certification Sinks Proposal • Lost in Translation: GAO Upholds Rejection of Lease Written in Japanese • Bid Protests in Alaska • Federal Circuit Holds Challengers to CICA Stay Overrides Need Not Satisfy Four-Factor Injunctive Relief Test • The Clock Is Still Ticking — Claims Timeliness Across the Boards and at the COFC

Published on March 19, 2026 • Law

GAO’s Building Was Closed Due to Snow, But that Didn’t Toll Protest Filing Deadlines

GAO dismissed a protest after the protester failed to file comments. The protester asked GAO to reconsider, arguing that it had not filed comments because the GAO building was closed due to weather on the day the comments were due. GAO rejected the argument. While the GAO building was closed on the day comments were due, GAO itself was still open—staff were working from home, and the EPDS was operational. Moreover, GAO noted that the protester could have raised this before GAO dismissed the protest.

Rigid Security Group, Inc., d/b/a Rigid Tactical—Reconsideration, GAO, B-424123.3 (March 17, 2026)

Background - The protester challenged award of a Navy contract. Following the agency’s initial report on January 16, 2026, the protester failed to file timely comments by the January 26 deadline, leading to the dismissal of its protest. The protester asked GAO to reconsider, contending that the GAO was closed due to weather conditions, affecting its ability to file.
Timeliness of Comments - The protester argued that the GAO's closure on January 26 and 27 warranted an extension to file comments. However, GAO clarified that its headquarters remained operational with telework capabilities, and the Electronic Protest Docketing System was fully functional. GAO maintained that the protester’s failure to file was due to its own misunderstanding and not an actual closure of the agency.
Reconsideration Grounds - GAO emphasized that reconsideration must be based on new, previously unconsidered information or on an error of fact. The protester had not provided such information. GAO noted that the protester could have raised these arguments about the weather closure when the agency initially requested dismissal.

The protester is represented by Anthony J. Mazzeo, Thomas Barrow, and Ryan Weber of Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC. The intervenor, Stronghold SOF Solutions, LLC, is represented by Richard B. Oliver, J. Matthew Carter, and Dinesh C. Dharmadasa of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The government is represented by Courtney Hatcher, Esq., of the Department of the Navy. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.