Alert: Using Sanctions, GAO Dismisses Protest Where Protester Used Non-Existent Citations and Cases

In what appears to be a first, the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") used its sanctions authority to dismiss a protest (Oready, LLC, B-423649 et al., Sept. 25, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __) where the firm submitted multiple non-existent citations or decisions in its papers. The decision reads as if the firm misused artificial intelligence ("AI") but that fact was not conceded. GAO's decision rested on the firm's repeated reliance on multiple unverified citations or decisions in its filings. [1]

Notably, this wasn't the first time GAO rebuked the firm for problematic filings and seeming misuse of AI. The issue also surfaced in an August dismissal (Oready, LLC, B-423524.2, August 13, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __) where GAO "advised [the firm], for a second time, that citation irregularities may result in the imposition of sanctions." This factual backdrop – i.e., the third instance – is why GAO ultimately concluded that "sanctions for abuse of the GAO bid protest process are warranted." [2]

Takeaway

While some may view GAO bid protests as an informal bid challenge, protests are far from it.  That is, GAO protests – like those before COFC – are a form of contested litigation that is governed by a set of rules, law, and regulation. And although GAO permits contractors to file pro se (without outside counsel), like the instant matter, this decision serves as a cautionary reminder that GAO will exercise its inherent powers to dismiss a case where warranted. 

Finally, as society – and the legal world – continues to leverage large language models ("LLM") or AI to assist with legal work, this decision is yet another reminder to always check the accuracy of any outputs that these programs produce.

__________

[1] GAO noted that its decision was "not based on the use of AI as a method of research." So, while the decision references AI and hallucinations, GAO ultimately grouped the issues as: (1) fabricated or non-existent decisions; (2) fabricated or non-existent legal conclusions of decisions issued; or (3) objectively do not stand for the factual or legal propositions asserted.

[2] As GAO also said in its conclusion, repeated citation irregularities "wastes the time of all parties and GAO in searching for and attempting to reconcile fabricated decisions, is at odds with the statutory mandate that our bid protest forum provide for 'the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of protests.'"

. . .

#govcon