under that solicitation, and did not get an award. See Benchmade Knife Co. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 731, 737 (2007) (dismissing as untimely under the Blue & Gold Fleet waiver rule because "Ben-chmade knew the solicitation was unrestricted prior to submission of its proposal, and yet, waited until after contract award to [awardee] before filing a protest at the GAO’’); Erinys Iraq Ltd. v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 518, 533 n. 7 (2007) (rejecting protestor’s argument to the extent it involved a challenge to the solicitation’s terms after receipt of proposals); Scott v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 151, 154 n. 2 (2007) (finding protestor had no standing to challenge the terms of a solicitation after contract award); Moore’s Cafeteria Servs. v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 180, 184-85 (2007) (<HOLDING>). In contrast in Esterhill Boat Service Corp.
holding that a protester who knew the agencys interpretation of a solicitation but failed to challenge it before bids were due waived its ability to object afterwards holding that a party waived its objection to the jurys verdict by not objecting to an alleged inconsistency prior to the dismissal of the jury holding that right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea holding that a party who has the opportunity to object to the terms of a government solicitation containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to the close of the bidding process waives its ability to raise the same objection subsequently in a bid protest action in the court of federal claims holding protestor waived its right to challenge a solicitation amendment by not objecting to its terms during the bidding process