Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

<p>In <em>Blue &amp; Gold, Fleet, L.P. v. United States</em>, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Court held that objections to a solicitation must be made prior to the close of bidding and if the offeror fails to do so, their objection is waived. This waiver rule was found to be a jurisdictional bar at the Court of Federal Claims in <em>M.R. Pittman Group, LLC v. United </em>States; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision yesterday, clarifying that the waiver rule outlined in the <em>Blue &amp; Gold</em> case is “more akin to a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule” than it is to a jurisdictional rule. Specifically, the Court held, “an offeror’s failure to timely object to a solicitation error does not strip the offeror of its ability to have its protest heard in front of the claims court.” Rather, the waiver rule creates a procedural obligation that requires the protestor to raise its objection to the solicitation before the close of bidding in order for its objection to be properly before the Court. (See the Court’s decision <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2325.OPINION.5-22-2023_2130243.pdf" target="_self">here</a>.)</p><input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102ifdm'/><div class="passle-featured-image passle-featured-image-position-bottom"><img src="https://images.passle.net/fit-in/400x400/filters:crop(0,51,612,342)/Passle/5f6edd8e8cb62a0bec3e5fd2/SearchServiceImages/2023-05-23-15-07-56-102-646cd6cc177b1f6c0992d097.jpg" alt="Featured Image" /></div>

The Blue & Gold Waiver Rule – Jurisdictional or Procedural?

You may also be interested in these

Michael Best Welcomes Dana Bell as Senior Counsel in Intellectual Property Practice

Seventh Circuit Grapples with BIPA Amendment.

Federal Court Blocks Oregon EPR Law — Implications Beyond Oregon

You may also be interested in these

Michael Best Welcomes Dana Bell as Senior Counsel in Intellectual Property Practice

Seventh Circuit Grapples with BIPA Amendment.

Federal Court Blocks Oregon EPR Law — Implications Beyond Oregon

Slide Menu

Slide Search