Tracking the latest developments at the GAO and Court of Federal Claims
Posted

by

In United Aero Group, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-248 (September 29, 2025), United Aero Group, LLC challenged the Department of State’s decision to direct AAR Government Services, Inc. to perform helicopter maintenance work at a Florida facility under an existing task order. United Aero argued that the agency had violated both the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and the Rule of Two by assigning the work to AAR without opening it to competition or reserving it for small businesses. The Court, however, found that it lacked jurisdiction over the protest, and that the Rule of Two did not apply to the agency’s technical direction under the task order.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Peraton Inc., B-423639 (September 17, 2025), Peraton Inc. protested the General Services Administration’s award of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) for IT lifecycle support services at U.S. Strategic Command. Peraton challenged several aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision. It argued that the agency had applied unstated evaluation criteria by placing excessive emphasis on audiovisual (A/V) engineering support requirements that were not clearly highlighted as evaluation factors. Peraton also claimed that the agency improperly double-counted weaknesses, penalizing the same alleged deficiency in both the technical and staffing evaluation areas.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Noblis MSD, LLC, B- 423599 (September 11, 2025), Noblis MSD, the incumbent contractor, protested the Navy’s award of a technical support services contract to Solute, Inc. Noblis raised several arguments, including that Solute’s proposal was noncompliant because it lacked a signed Standard Form (SF) 33, that the agency unreasonably evaluated past performance and that the award decision ignored known negative performance information. GAO denied the protest in full, finding that the agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable and supported by the record, and offering helpful reminders about intent to be bound, evaluators’ discretion, the “too close at hand” doctrine, and the use of sworn declarations.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Enviremedial Services, Inc., B-423552 (August 28, 2025), Enviremedial Services, Inc. (ESI) protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a facilities maintenance contract to BryMak & Associates, Inc., alleging flaws in the agency’s price evaluation, past performance analysis and best-value tradeoff. While GAO dismissed ESI’s unbalanced pricing claim, it sustained the protest based on multiple errors and omissions in the past performance evaluation and the agency’s failure to meaningfully document its source selection rationale.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In GovCIO, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Nos. 25-809 & 25-913 (August 18, 2025), in one of the first cases to test the impact of a Trump administration executive order (EO) on federal procurement, GovCIO and 22nd Century Technologies challenged the IRS’s sole-source bridge contract to Iron Mountain for scanning and digitizing incoming tax filings. The agency had bypassed competition, invoking an “urgent and compelling need” based on EO 14,247, which mandated digital payments and a shift away from paper-based systems by late 2025.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC, B-423267.2 (September 2, 2025), Advanced Computer Learning Company (ACLC), the incumbent contractor, protested the Navy’s award of a support services and data link training contract to Linchpin Solutions, Inc., challenging the agency’s evaluation of past performance and the resulting best-value tradeoff. ACLC argued that it was irrational for the Navy to assign Linchpin the same “Substantial Confidence” rating it received, despite ACLC’s strong performance as the incumbent on the exact requirement.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Competitive Innovations, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1773 (August 28, 2025), Competitive Innovations (CI) challenged the Transportation Security Administration’s decision to reject its revised proposal in a procurement for program management support services. TSA had disqualified CI for submitting a modification to its labor category mapping after the proposal deadline, and for relying on a GSA schedule modification that was not yet effective when its proposal was due. CI argued the agency’s actions were overly rigid and unfair, and that it should have been granted an extension. The Court disagreed, upholding the rejection and reiterating that when it comes to proposal deadlines in Federal procurements, late is late.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Protection Strategies Etc. International, LLC, B-423539 (Aug. 25, 2025), Protection Strategies, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), filed a pre-award protest challenging the terms of a solicitation issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) for background investigation support services. The protester objected to the agency’s decision to issue the solicitation as a general small business set-aside, rather than reserving it for SDVOSBs or another small business subcategory. It also raised concerns about the solicitation’s risk structure, particularly the use of a fixed-price contract model and the alleged lack of guaranteed funding for phase-in activities.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2023-1970 (Decided Aug. 28, 2025), Percipient.ai challenged a task order award by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), alleging that the government violated 10 U.S.C. § 3453—a statutory preference for commercial items—by failing to fairly consider its AI platform. But Percipient had not submitted a bid, teamed with a prime, or otherwise participated in the procurement process. The core legal question became: Can a company that never submitted a proposal still be an “interested party” with standing to protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)? A Federal Circuit panel initially said yes. The government appealed, and the court took the case up en banc, ultimately reversing course.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Advanced Technology Systems Company v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-515C (July 16, 2025), Advanced Technology Systems Company (ATSC) protested the Navy’s award of a contract for a nationwide maritime surveillance system in Egypt to Forward Slope, Inc. (FSI). ATSC argued that the Navy’s best value determination was flawed, that it used a vague and inconsistent past performance evaluation framework, and that the agency disregarded highly relevant subcontractor past performance. The Court agreed, finding that ATSC had established multiple procurement errors that were both irrational and prejudicial, even though injunctive relief was denied due to national security concerns.

Continue reading ›