00:41:43	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	Question from audience:  If you send a letter, do you have to wait 35 days before bringing a formal bid protest?  Answer:  No.  Assuming a further protest to GAO or the Court of Federal Claims is still timely, there is no legal need to "exhaust" the protest before the agency.  Good question -- thanks!
00:54:24	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	Question:  Could a protester who timely filed an agency-level protest challenge an agency’s decision to “override” the regulatory stay at COFC?   ANSWER:  I'm not aware of any cases with these facts, but in principle the answer should be yes, since this is arguably a breach of procurement law and thus should trigger jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.  Question:  Or, alternatively, if the agency appears to have missed or ignored the timely agency-level protest, could the agency challenge the agency action at COFC? I assumed this relief was only limited to protests filed at GAO…is that right?  ANSWER:  I assume the question is whether a vendor could challenge the indifferent agency's actions at the Court of Federal Claims.  Again, in principle a challenge should be possible at the COFC, assuming the other jurisprudential prerequisites are met.
01:33:17	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	Question:  hello, are the power point slides available somewhere on line?   Thanks
Answer:  The slides are already posted (I believe in PDF form, due to file size) on the program page, https://publicprocurementinternational.com/introduction-to-us-bid-protests-summer-series/.  Just skim down to the blue schedule which includes all the materials.  And welcome, Tom.
02:02:19	Christopher Yukins / GW Law:	Question:  in Improper Cancellation protests, provide some examples of what the Court/GAO has found to be "improper" and thus sustained the protest?  Answer:  the ABA text, "Bid Protests," has some interesting examples at page 90 of cases where protests have been sustained for an improper cancellation of a solicitation, where the agency:  (1) failed to provide GAO with its rationale for canceling the solicitation, (2) erroneously believed it was required to procure janitorial services in a manner not called for by the solicitation; and (3) asserted its needs had materially changed although in fact, GAO found, the changes weren't really consequential.