GAO decisions/Dismissed/Decided 16 Jan 2026
ASG Solutions Corporation d/b/a American Systems Group
Untimely post-award protest: no required debriefing under FAR part 13
The procurement
On February 19, 2025, the Navy issued an urgent RFQ for two full-time administrative support personnel at NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Bahrain, with quotations due February 23 and performance to begin March 30. The RFQ expressly stated that the acquisition was being conducted under FAR part 13 simplified acquisition procedures. ASG quoted $1,820,460.
The protest
ASG heard nothing until it asked about award on September 3. On September 18 the Navy emailed that it had received 10 quotations and issued a $1,460,947.20 purchase order to WWC Global on a best-value tradeoff. ASG requested a FAR 15.506 debriefing the next day, and the Navy first replied that a debrief was forthcoming, then said it had already released what it could. After weeks of emails and GAO's closure during the lapse in appropriations, ASG protested on November 13, challenging the evaluation and arguing that its filing time ran from the debriefing it was owed.
The agency’s answer
The Navy said unsuccessful vendors in a FAR part 13 buy are not entitled to a FAR 15.506 debriefing, and its September 18 email was the brief explanation of award called for by FAR 13.106-3(d) and 15.503(b)(2). It argued ASG's deadline was therefore September 29, unaffected by the shutdown, and that ASG had not diligently pursued information about the award.
What decided it
A part 13 buy has no required debriefing, so the 10 days ran from the September 18 brief explanation of award.
GAO dismissed the protest as untimely. The debriefing exception to the 10-day rule applies only to procurements conducted on the basis of competitive proposals where a debriefing is requested and required. The RFQ expressly used FAR part 13, which calls for a brief explanation of the award on request, not a FAR 15.506 debriefing, and the Navy's mistaken references to a coming debriefing did not create one. ASG knew its basis of protest on September 18, so its November 13 filing was late. GAO added that ASG, which waited 157 days after the planned performance start to ask about award, had not diligently pursued the information.
“ASG is simply mistaken in its belief that it was entitled to a required debriefing pursuant to FAR section 15.506 when requested, and the Navy's erroneous references to a forthcoming debriefing do not create a new requirement for such a debriefing.”
GAO, B-424053
For the file: The solicitation's stated procedures, not later emails, decide whether a debriefing is required and whether the protest clock is tolled. On a part 13 buy, give the brief explanation and don't call it a debriefing; on the vendor side, file within 10 days of that explanation.
Authorities: 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2); FAR 13.106-3(d); FAR 15.503(b); FAR 15.506. Read the decision at GAO →
Facts are condensed from the published decision and the quote is verbatim; the takeaway is ours. Where GAO decided several grounds, only this one is described.
Could you have called it?
Protest! is the daily game: three real GAO decisions, both sides laid out. Rule sustain, deny or dismiss, then pick what decided it.
Play today’s Protest!