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

by

In Analysis, Studies, and Training International, LLC, et al. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Nos. 24-1720 & 25-76 (Consolidated) (April 14, 2025)​, two offerors were excluded from an Air Force procurement for drone training support after failing to meet SAM.gov requirements tied to women-owned small business (WOSB) certification and registration continuity. Both Analysis, Studies, and Training International, LLC (ASTI) and SOFIS-TRG, LLC (SOFIS) protested, arguing that the SAM-related issues were clerical or cured, but the Court upheld the agency’s decision, underscoring the strict enforcement of SAM compliance in federal contracting.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In a high-stakes procurement for medical services at the southern U.S. border, incumbent contractor Loyal Source challenged the handling by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of alleged Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violations and bias after a Washington Post article and whistleblower letters revealed internal details about the ongoing procurement. In Loyal Source Government Services, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1001 (Apr. 8, 2025)​​, Loyal Source argued that these disclosures tainted the procurement and that DHS failed to investigate or mitigate the harm adequately.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Perimeter Security Partners, LLC, B-422666.4 (March 11, 2025), Perimeter Security Partners (PSP) protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a task order to Low Voltage Wiring  (LVW) for maintenance services at Army access control points.  The Army rejected PSP’s technically stronger, lower-priced quote, rating it unacceptable due to two alleged deficiencies tied to exceeding a 15-page limit. PSP argued that the solicitation was ambiguous about whether certain charts—like an organizational chart and a response time chart—were excluded from the page count.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In SteerBridge Strategies, LLC, B-422831.2, et al. (Dec. 31, 2024), SteerBridge, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), protested the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to amend, rather than cancel, a solicitation for modern claims processing support services. The company argued that the amendment effectively created an improper sole-source procurement favoring certain competitors and that the VA’s market research was inadequate​.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Warrior Focused Solutions, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1695 (March 4, 2025), Warrior Focused Solutions (WFS) protested the U.S. Army’s award of a contract for Mission Support Services (MSS) at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) to Valiant Global Defense Services, Inc. (Valiant). WFS argued that the Army’s evaluation was flawed due to: (1) the Army’s failure to hold discussions despite the Army’s acquisition plan stating they would be conducted; (2) the Army’s unreasonable evaluation of WFS’s technical and small business participation proposals that led to a lower rating; (3) the Agency’s improper cost realism analysis, which allegedly adjusted WFS’s proposed costs unfairly; and (4) multiple errors in the Army’s best-value tradeoff decision, which WFS claimed was based on flawed evaluations.​

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Blue Water Thinking, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1641C (March 11, 2025)​, Blue Water Thinking (BWT) protested a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award a Program Support Integration (PSI) contract to GoldPath Communications JV, LLC (GoldPath). BWT argued that: (1) the VA’s best-value trade-off analysis was flawed; (2) GoldPath had an organizational conflict of interest (OCI); (3) the contracting officer preselected GoldPath before conducting the trade-off analysis; and (4) the VA breached its duty to consider proposals fairly​.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In MicroTechnologies LLC, B-423197.2, et al. (March 4, 2025)​, MicroTechnologies LLC protested the U.S. Air Force’s award of a task order to Trace Systems Inc. for Combined Air and Space Center Operations Center (CAOC) communications support. The protest challenged multiple aspects of the Air Force’s evaluation, asserting that agency failed to properly assess: (1) the offerors’ professional employee compensation plans in accordance with FAR 52.222-46; (2) the realism of the offerors’ non-professional direct labor rates; (3) the price risk analysis required under DFARS 252.204-7024; and (4) a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) involving a former government official.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

GAOvsUSCoFC_logos-300x169When a government contractor files a bid protest, choosing the right forum can significantly impact the outcome. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) are the two primary venues, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. This post breaks down the key differences to help contractors make an informed decision.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In System Studies & Simulation, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Nos. 24-1429, et al. (March 4, 2025)​, three disappointed offerors, including System Studies & Simulation (S3), protested the U.S. Army’s decision not to conduct discussions before awarding a contract for Advanced Helicopter Flight Training Support (AHFTS) services. The protesters argued that the Army violated Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) § 215.306(c), which states that discussions “should” be held for procurements over $100 million​.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In TISTA Science and Technology Corporation, B-422891.2, et al. (Jan. 23, 2025​​), TISTA protested a National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarding of a task order for software development services to Tantus Technologies, alleging improper evaluation of both offerors’ technical proposals. The core issue was GAO’s finding that NIH treated TISTA and Tantus unequally, particularly with respect to their surge staffing approaches, despite nearly identical solutions.

Continue reading ›