- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
In Utech, Inc. v. United States, No. 24-1586 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that in most cases, a pre-award protest must be filed before the proposal submission deadline to avoid the Blue & Gold waiver rule. This decision, while nonprecedential, is in line with U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) precedent, which has long held that pre-award protests must be filed before the proposal submission deadline.
While GAO’s Bid Protest Regulations provide that protests based upon alleged improprieties apparent in a solicitation must be filed before the proposal due date, the Court of Federal Claims is not bound by a similar rule. In recognition of the problems caused by delaying protests challenging the terms of a solicitation, the Federal Circuit declared in Blue & Gold that “a party who has the opportunity to object to the terms of a government solicitation containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to the close of the bidding process waives its ability to raise the same objection subsequently in a bid protest action in the Court of Federal Claims.” Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308, 1313–15 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The rule is designed to prevent parties from withholding challenges to the terms of a solicitation until after close of the bidding process.
But even under Blue & Gold, a question remained: what does “prior to the close of the bidding process” mean? The court often interpreted the rule to apply in the same manner as GAO’s timeliness regulations (requiring a protest to be filed before the proposal submission deadline). However, this was not unanimous. As we previously discussed here, in MVL USA, Inc. v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 437 (2025), Judge Holte held that the “close of the bidding process” for purposes of the Blue & Gold rule means prior to award, not the proposal submission deadline.
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Utech rejects that interpretation. Discussing its earlier decision in COMINT Systems Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012), which extended Blue & Gold to “all situations in which the protesting party had the opportunity to challenge a solicitation before the award and failed to do so,” the Federal Circuit explained that “‘close of the bidding process’ means the deadline to submit bids.” Applying this reasoning, the Federal Circuit found that Utech waived its challenge to the terms of the solicitation by failing to raise the issue before the proposal submission deadline.
The Utech decision is a welcome clarification of the risk for protesters under the Blue & Gold waiver rule. Although the decision is nonprecedential, it is a potentially useful signal of a Federal Circuit view that the “close of the bidding process” refers to the proposal submission deadline — not contract award — thereby aligning the Court of Federal Claims framework with GAO’s longstanding timeliness requirements. Going forward, contractors who are aware of potential solicitation defects should not delay in raising those challenges, as waiting until after the proposal submission deadline risks waiver in both forums.
Key Takeaways
- Protests challenging the terms of a solicitation should be filed before the initial proposal submission deadline at both the Court of Federal Claims and GAO.
- While Utech is nonprecedential, it provides a potentially useful signal of the Federal Circuit’s position on this critical issue.
- Because both GAO’s Bid Protest Regulations regarding timeliness (4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)) and the Federal Circuit’s Blue & Gold waiver rule carry severe consequences — dismissal of the protest — contractors should proactively identify solicitation issues and involve counsel early in the procurement process to avoid timeliness traps.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
