shall have bid protest jurisdiction ‘without regard to whether suit is instituted before or after the contract is awarded.’ ” Software Testing Solutions Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 533, 535 (2003); see also Cubic Def. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 45 Fed.Cl. 239, 252 (1999) (noting that “this court has followed GAO’s timeliness rule when the plaintiffs protest is founded upon alleged defects in the solicitation,” but not in the case of a procurement violation). The contracting officer also raised the application of the Christian Doctrine. The Christian Doctrine provides that contract terms that should have been included in a given contract are considered to have been included, even if they were not. See G.L. Christian & Assocs. v. United States, 160 Ct.Cl. 1, 312 F.2d 418 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Defendant argued initially that the Christian
recognizing the applicability of choice of law clauses in contracts holding that under title vesting clauses overhead property allocated to government contracts becomes property of federal government holding that arbitration clauses as contractual agreements must be enforced to their terms holding that government contracts must be read as if they included clauses required by law holding that statutory provisions cannot be read standing alone instead they must be construed in light of the entire act of which they are a part