Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Supreme Court Holds that Federal Law Does Not Preempt State Tort Claims When the Contractor’s Own Negligence Causes Injuries • You Can’t Blame the Government for Weather You Could Have Predicted • COFC Holds that USAID Contractors Properly Pleaded Breach of Contract by Improper Mass Termination in Bad Faith/Abuse of Discretion • Bid Protests in Maine • Army Awards $2.7B Contract for Dark Eagle Hypersonic Weapon

Is Promissory Estoppel a Remedy in a GAO Protest?

The protester argued the agency should be estopped from proceeding with an award to another bidder. The protester contended it had detrimentally relied on the agency’s promise to cancel the solicitation. GAO dismissed. The protester’s detrimental reliance claim did not allege a violation of procurement law. 

Global Engineering Services, LLC, GAO B-421866 
  • The Award – The agency issued an invitation for bids. Multiple bidders responded. The agency, however, didn’t make an award during the 60-day bid acceptance period. After the 60 days passed, the agency asked the protester to confirm its price. The protester submitted a revised bid that raised its price. The agency awarded the contract to another bidder that didn’t raise its price. 
  • Protest Argument – The protester challenged the award, arguing the agency should be estopped from awarding the contract to the other bidder. The protester contended it had detrimentally relied on the contracting officer’s representation that the agency would cancel the solicitation and resolicit if the protester raised its prices. 
  • Interested Party – GAO found the protester wasn’t an interested party. A bidder is ineligible for award after its bid expires. The protester’s bid expired after 60 days. While bidders can grant an extension of their bid, they cannot revise their original bid while granting the extension. Here, the protester had revised its original bid, rendering the expired bid invalid. 
  • Promissory Estoppel – Additionally, GAO could not grant the remedy the protester sought. GAO is only authorized to hear protests alleging a violation of a procurement statute or regulation. The protester’s detrimental reliance argument was not founded on an alleged procurement violation. 

The protester is represented by Jonathan D. Perrone and Hay Kyung Chang Lanteigne of Whitcomb Selinsky, P.C. The agency is represented by Marcia A. McCree of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision. 

--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor 

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.