been a pre-proposed procurement objection. Plaintiffs also conclude that it is the process, not any solicitation term, that is protested, making this situation distinguishable from the Blue & Gold Fleet precedent. In Blue & Gold Fleet the plaintiff had been aware of issues with the terms of the solicitation but failed to raise them prior to the deadline for submission of proposals, waiting until after the proposal deadline to file a bid protest action in this court. Nothing about the timing of the events leading up to the protest in Blue & Gold Fleet was similar to those at bar. Blue & Gold Fleet has been applied to preclude post-bid and post-contract award objections to the terms of direct government solicitations. Ne. Military Sales, Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed.Cl. 103, 117 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Tech Sys., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl.
holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection holding that speculation objection as to expert testimony was waived where a different ground for objection was offered below holding that objection that terms of the solicitation were irrational was waived holding that party waived an objection to choice of law