BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam Live Webinar with Live Q&A
  • calendar_month March 31, 2026 @ 1:00 PM E.T.
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Commercial Law
  • schedule 90 minutes

Bid Protests at GAO and COFC: Standing, Timing, and Record

CICA Stay, the GAO 100-Day Clock, and Standing After Percipient.ai

BarbriPdBannerMessage

About the Course

Introduction

This CLE webinar will examine the 2026 bid protest landscape at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC), and at the agency level, focusing on the strategic and procedural decisions that shape outcomes from intake through remedy.

Description

The panel will compare GAO vs. COFC vs. agency-level protests, including key timelines that drive forum strategy (such as the CICA stay and GAO's 100-day decision target), along with how COFC pace and remedies can change risk and leverage in fast-moving procurements. The panel will review standing and threshold issues, including "interested party" and direct economic interest concepts after the Federal Circuit's Percipient.ai Inc. v. United States decision, and the recurring questions around who can and cannot bring a protest.

The panel will assess the core procedural traps that routinely decide cases before the merits: timeliness rules, debriefing strategy, preservation and waiver issues, and drafting protest grounds that satisfy GAO's pleading expectations. 

Listen as our panel of practitioners examines current bid protest trends and offers guidance on selecting forums, preserving issues, developing a protest record, and navigating corrective action and remedies in 2026 and beyond.

Presented By

Scott N. Flesch
Member
Miller & Chevalier

Mr. Flesch focuses his practice on government contracts-related litigation, including contract claims and disputes, bid protests, and suspension and debarment. He is widely known as a preeminent expert in government contracts litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Flesch served as the Army Chief Trial Attorney, appointed by the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army. In that capacity, he served as the authorized representative of the Secretary of the Army with sole authority and responsibility for the conduct and control of litigation of contract disputes for all Department of the Army cases docketed with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, except for appeals originating from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers valued under $3 million. Mr. Flesch has been an adjunct faculty member at The Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law since 2004 and has taught government contracts for the past 11 years.

Tracye Winfrey Howard
Partner
Wiley Rein LLP

Ms. Howard counsels and represents government contractors and subcontractors on a broad range of government contracting issues, including bid protests, contract claims and disputes, subcontract formation and performance issues, compliance with ethics and procurement integrity laws, and government investigations and audits.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Tuesday, March 31, 2026

  • schedule

    1:00 PM E.T.

I. The 2026 bid protest landscape

A. Practical differences in GAO vs. COFC vs. agency-level

B. Key timelines and forum strategy

II. Standing and threshold Issues

A. Interested party and direct economic interest: Percipient.ai

B. Who can/cannot protest

III. Timeliness, debriefings, and preservation traps

IV. Pleading and record development 

V. Merits issues

VI. Corrective action and remedies

VII. Outlook for 2026 and beyond

VIII. Practitioner takeaways

The panel will explore these and other key areas:

  • Practical differences in bid protests at GAO, the COFO, and at the agency level
  • Key timelines that drive forum strategy
  • Standing and threshold issues
  • Timeliness traps, debriefing strategy, and preservation/waiver issues
  • Common merit themes that recur across protests
  • Corrective action and remedy dynamics