00:37:59	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Professor Christoff and I will be monitoring the chat -- so please feel free to post questions here.
00:43:43	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	To Sandeep Verma's question -- yes, on a pre-award protest.
00:44:12	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Once bids/proposals close, the ability to protest may well evaporate.
00:46:03	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Audience question:  How would a party come to find out if they are an "interested party", where they rank in order?
Answer:  From the post-award debriefing under FAR Subpart 15.6.
00:47:29	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Correction - FAR 15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors
00:51:54	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Acetris Health, http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2399.Opinion.2-10-2020_1529718.pdf
00:56:24	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question from Audience:  In terms of standing, at what point in the protest process should an intervener submit its appearance to the GAO or COFC?  Before or after the Agency Report has been submitted?
Answer:  As soon as possible.  The intervenor (the awardee) needs to file an appearance as quickly as possible to protect its interests.
00:57:52	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question from audience:  Is there another recourse if the Government states they did not rank offers? (15.506(d)(3)
Answer:  A lawyerly response:  it will be harder for the agency to argue that the protester lacks standing if the offers have not been ranked by the agency -- the protester will have an easier time arguing that it is indeed an interested party.
01:06:04	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question:  What if you submit a proposal and you are not notified that you did not win. Then you don’t have a chance to even ask for a debrief because you are not aware that you did not win. I’ve personally experienced this and only learned through the grape vine that someone else had won.
Answer:  GAO Regulation 21.1 says:  "Protests other than those covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be filed not later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known (whichever is earlier), with the exception of protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required."  So -- technically speaking -- the first informal notice (unless the potential protester "should have" known earlier) of award should trigger the deadline.
01:08:16	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question:  what are the determining factors of if a bidder gets or is entitled to a debrief?
Answer:  FAR 15.506(a) says:  "   (a) (1) An offeror, upon its written request received by the agency within 3 days after the date on which that offeror has received notification of contract award in accordance with 15.503(b), shall be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award."  So, it's important to submit a written request for debriefing immediately upon learning that you've lost.  And (and this is counterintuitive) the winner may request a debriefing too, so that the winner understands what debriefing information the other offerors are receiving.
01:14:22	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question:  Regarding the last question asked and answered by the panelists, is there any quantitive period that the courts have factored into “should have known”?  For example, 6 months after the submission period for a solicitation has ended; or even 1 year after the bid submission period concluded.
Answer:  This question of what "should have known" arises in many different ways in many different contexts.  For a discussion of how a diligent offeror that has NOT submitted a proposal should press forward on a pre-award protest, for example, see the Federal Circuit's decision in CGI General, http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5143.Opinion.3-6-2015.1.PDF
01:24:59	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question:  What is something the Government is not required to release during a debrief that should be considered in order to prevent some protests? What is that "more information" a company is typically seeking?
Answer:  The Section 809 panel recommended as follows, looking beyond the information currently required under FAR 15.506:  "Recommendation 69: Provide as part of a debriefing, in all procurements where a debriefing is required, a [1] redacted source selection decision document and the [2} technical evaluation of the vendor receiving the debriefing."
01:27:22	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Link to the FAR rule that Kendra is referencing:  https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.506.
01:56:20	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	For context to pending questions:  31 USC 3553 states, with regard to preaward protests:  (1)Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a contract may not be awarded in any procurement after the Federal agency has received notice of a protest with respect to such procurement from the Comptroller General and while the protest is pending.
02:01:23	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question:  If a post-award protest by a new contractor stays contract performance (especially a service contract where services are regularly required to be delivered), what does such a stay mean for an agency’s ability to continue performance of a previously awarded contract to an incumbent contractor which was actually meant to stop and be replaced by a new contract? Plainly speaking, the old contract with the incumbent contractor can be extended by the agency, but a new contractor with the incumbent contractor cannot progress for the same service?
Answer:  That's correct.  I noted that different people see "abuse" in the system differently -- some, especially in the government, believe that it is abusive for an incumbent to bring a protest merely to extend an existing contract.
02:04:16	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Question:  Concerning a post award stay, if any received (valid) protest triggers a stay, what is the relevance of the 5 day rule?
Answer:  for the valid protest to trigger the stay, if there's a debriefing, the protest has to meet the 5-day-after-debriefing rule.
02:13:07	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	The UK courts can impose huge bonding requirements on the protester.  This has been a contentious point, one part of arguments that the UK system is not "effective," because it puts such a burden on the protester.
02:16:05	gwlawgovpro@law.gwu.edu:	Issues under GAO's protective order can be tricky.  A useful GAO guide:  https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-613sp.pdf.
02:25:28	Lesses Cardoso:	thank you from Portugal