Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

Protester Claimed Awardee Had Many Ineligibilities. COFC Disagreed. • Did the Bridge Contract Cross Automatic Stay Lines? COFC Rules It Didn’t • Protester Argued Failure to Inform of Requirement Meant It Was Immaterial. GAO Disagreed. • Terminations Episode 2: Grounds for Default: When is the Government Justified? • COFC Enforces TAA Limits: “Exorbitantly High” Prices Don’t Justify Award to Non-TAA-Compliant Supplier

Published on November 20, 2025 • Law

The Agency Only Sent RFQ to 4 Vendors When Others Could Meet the Requirements. Why Was GAO Unconcerned?

The protester alleged that the agency erred by failing to send the protester a Request for Quotation (RFQ). The protester argued that the agency wrongfully limited competition by issuing an RFQ to only four vendors, even though five could have met the requirements. GAO sided with the agency. FAR 8.405-3(b)(2)(v)(B) expressly gives agencies discretion to send the RFQ directly to "as many schedule contractors as practicable."

AtechGov, LLC, GAO B-423738

Background - The protester, AtechGov, competed for a contract to provide IT support services. The agency excluded AtechGov from a selection of four vendors. AtechGov claimed this was a limited competition and contended that the agency unreasonably denied its request to extend the quotation submission deadline.
Limited Competition - AtechGov argued that the agency wrongfully limited competition by issuing the RFQ to only four vendors, despite market research indicating that at least five could meet its requirements. The FAR subsection 8.405-3(b)(2)(v)(B) allows an agency to solicit “as many schedule contractors as practicable.” GAO determined that the agency acted reasonably by issuing the solicitation to vendors it believed could fulfill the requirements. As long as at least three contractors could fulfill the requirements, the agency properly complied with FAR subsection 8.405-3(b)(2)(v)(B). This was indeed the case.
Deadline Denial - The protester claimed the agency acted unreasonably by failing to extend the RFQ submission deadline after AtechGov learned about it just before the due date. The agency countered that there is no legal obligation to extend submission deadlines. GAO ruled that the agency's procurement strategy didn't mandate an extension, finding that AtechGov's lack of a timely inquiry contributed to its situation and that the agency therefore did not act unreasonably.

The protester is represented by W. Brad English, Hunter M. Drake, Taylor R. Holt, and Emily J. Chancey of Maynard Nexsen, PC. The government is represented by Adam Humphries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GAO attorneys Christine Martin and Tania Calhoun 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.