FAR Part 13: Can I Wait to Protest When the Agency Tells Me a Debriefing Will Be Provided?
•January 28, 2026
0
Why It Matters
Understanding the strict GAO timeliness rules prevents contractors from losing protest rights due to agency misrepresentations, a critical risk in fast‑paced simplified acquisitions. This insight is especially timely as more agencies use FAR Part 13, making it vital for contractors to act quickly and base their strategies on the solicitation language rather than post‑award communications.
FAR Part 13: Can I Wait to Protest When the Agency Tells Me a Debriefing Will Be Provided?
The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) timeliness rules are generally straightforward. But as a recent GAO decision shows, agency statements to disappointed offerors can sometimes blur application of the rules—often to the detriment of a would-be protester.
As most government contractors are aware, a protester has 10 days from the time the basis of protest was known or should have been known to file a post-award bid protest with GAO.[1](#_ftn1) This deadline can be extended under certain circumstances, such as when a required debriefing is timely requested and held. When this exception applies, a protester has 10 days from the end of its debriefing to file a timely protest.[2](#_ftn2) What constitutes a “required debriefing” that can toll a protest period is not always clear to the procuring agency or the offerors.
In this blog post, we discuss a recent GAO decision (ASG Solutions Corp.) that highlights the risk of relying on an agency representation that a debriefing is forthcoming without understanding the timeliness rules for protesting that particular procurement.
The GAO Decision
In ASG Solutions Corp. (B-424053), the Navy issued a solicitation seeking administrative personnel to perform administrative support services at bases in the Kingdom of Bahrain.[3](#_ftn3) The agency issued the solicitation using the Simplified Acquisition Procedures of FAR Part 13 and subsequently made award of a $1,460,947 contract to WWC Global.
On September 18, 2025, ASG Solutions Corp. (ASG) was informed of the adverse contract award, in the form of a brief explanation under FAR 15.503(b)(2). The next day, ASG requested a debriefing pursuant to FAR 15.506. On September 21, the Navy initially told ASG that a “debrief is forthcoming,” but later indicated that all required information had already been provided in the brief explanation.
The Navy and ASG exchanged several emails between September 21 and October 15 related to whether the agency was required to provide a debriefing. For its part, ASG asserted that it was entitled to a debriefing because the procurement exceeded the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) of $250,000 and therefore was not a genuine simplified acquisition.
Eventually, during the lapse in appropriations, the Navy confirmed that it would not provide a debriefing to ASG. On November 13, at the end of the government shutdown, ASG filed its protest with GAO.
Before responding to the merits of ASG’s challenge, the Navy requested that the protest be dismissed as untimely. The Navy argued that, because the procurement was conducted under FAR Part 13, ASG was not entitled to a required debriefing that would hold the protest period open. Thus, according to the Navy, ASG’s protest was untimely filed on November 13 because it was due 10 days after the brief explanation—i.e., September 29.
Ultimately, the GAO agreed with the Navy and dismissed the protest as untimely based on two key conclusions. First, the GAO concluded that the procurement was indeed conducted under FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures. In this regard, the GAO relied on express language from the solicitation, noting that post-award communications from the agency are not controlling for determining the type of procurement at issue.[4](#_ftn4) In reaching this conclusion, the GAO also found that because the services were being performed in support of contingency operations outside the United States, the procurement was below the applicable SAT threshold of $1.5 million.[5](#_ftn5)
Second, the GAO reasoned that, because the agency awarded the contract under FAR Part 13, the agency was not required as a matter of law to provide ASG with a post-award debriefing. Again, GAO noted that the Navy’s erroneous references to a forthcoming debriefing did not independently create a requirement for a debriefing that was not otherwise required.
Based on this analysis, GAO dismissed the protest because it was filed more than 10 days after ASG received its brief explanation.
Contractor Takeaways
The ASG Solutions decision provides important takeaways for contractors considering filing a protest after receiving notice that the government awarded a contract to another company:
-
Review the terms of the specific solicitation as they control the determination regarding the type of procurement. Unsuccessful offerors should review the solicitation at issue to identify what type of procurement is at issue and which debriefing rules apply. Remember, it is the solicitation (not what the agency says afterwards) that will control.
-
Would-be protesters cannot rely on the agency for clarification. As a general matter, asking the procuring agency to clarify an issue is not a bad idea. But offerors should remember that an agency’s response will not trump an applicable rule.[6](#_ftn6) As discussed above, ASG exchanged communications with the Navy for weeks, after the Navy initially suggested a debriefing was “forthcoming.” In the end, GAO concluded that these post-award communications did not impact whether the debriefing was required as a matter of law.
-
Remain vigilant regarding your protest rights under a FAR Part 13 procurement. While GAO dismissed the protest as untimely based on the late submission, GAO noted another issue that would have stopped ASG from proceeding.[7](#_ftn7) Under FAR Part 13, an agency is not required to inform offerors of an adverse award. Instead, only the awardee is informed, and all other offerors must request information about the status of the procurement.[8](#_ftn8) ASG did not seek an update until 157 days after the date the solicitation established as the start of contract performance. This delay violated ASG’s duty to diligently pursue information about the contract award. Does this mean an offeror must inundate the agency’s procurement officials with daily requests for updates? No, GAO made clear that such daily requests are not necessary. But GAO explained that waiting 157 days to inquire about a procurement marked as urgent did not satisfy ASG’s obligations to diligently pursue its protest.
-
When in doubt, err on the side of caution. Likely the biggest takeaway from the ASG Solutions decision is that, even if an agency arguably misleads an offeror into waiting for a debriefing, GAO will strictly enforce its timeliness rules. Therefore, when faced with ambiguity regarding the applicable timeliness standard, protesters should err on the side of caution and file their protests based on the earliest potential deadline.
In closing, because the GAO bid protest timeliness rules are unforgiving, we recommend engaging outside counsel promptly—to evaluate potential protest grounds and applicable filing deadlines—in order to preserve the company’s rights.
[1](#_ftnref1) See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2).
[2](#_ftnref2) Id.
[3](#_ftnref3) ASG Sols. Corp., B-424053, Jan. 16, 2026.
[4](#_ftnref4) Id. at 4 citing Beckman Coulter, Inc., B-421748, July 28, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 180 at 3 n.3 (“Notwithstanding the references to FAR part 15 debriefings in the unsuccessful offeror notification, this procurement for commercial products and services was conducted under FAR part 13, and a debriefing was not required.”).
[5](#_ftnref5) Id. citing FAR 2.1 (Definition of “Simplified acquisition threshold”).
[6](#_ftnref6) We have explored the issue of clashes between the rules and agency representations in a previous blog post, GAO Holds that Enhanced Debriefing Timing Regulations Control Over Agency Instructions.
[7](#_ftnref7) ASG Sols. Corp., B-424053, Jan. 16, 2026 at 5 n.5.
[8](#_ftnref8) FAR 13.106-3(c) (“For acquisitions that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and for which automatic notification is not provided through an electronic commerce method that employs widespread electronic public notice, notification to unsuccessful suppliers shall be given only if requested or required by 5.301.”).
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...