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

by

Twice in one week, GAO dismissed bid protests as untimely, with each case highlighting a different but equally unforgiving timeliness trap. In ASG Solutions Corp., B-424053 (Jan. 16, 2026), the protester mistakenly assumed it was entitled to a FAR Part 15 debriefing in a FAR Part 13 procurement, incorrectly believing that its protest clock had been tolled. In Mission Analytics, LLC, B-423980 (Jan. 14, 2026), the protester miscalculated the deadline for filing a follow-on GAO protest after initial adverse agency action, and missed the filing deadline by one minute. Together, the decisions underscore GAO’s strict enforcement of its timeliness rules and serve as a reminder that misunderstandings about debriefings, agency-level protests and filing deadlines are often fatal to otherwise potentially successful protest challenges.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Manutek Inc., B-423476.2, et al. (Jan. 1, 2026), Manutek protested the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s decision not to award it an IDIQ contract for professional, scientific and technical services under the ProTech 2.0 Weather Domain. The protest focused largely on the agency’s evaluation of Manutek’s oral presentation, including alleged flaws in time management, documentation, evaluator judgments and the conduct of the post-presentation interactive dialogue.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Markon LLC, B-423767, et al. (Dec. 12, 2025), Markon protested the Central Intelligence Agency’s award to Arcfield for business operations, IT engineering and business enterprise modernization support. Markon challenged the CIA’s cost realism evaluation, arguing that the agency improperly relied on oral instructions given during pre-solicitation industry one-on-one sessions, instructions that were never incorporated into the final RFP. According to Markon, the CIA used those oral statements to reject Markon’s proposed efficiencies and imposed a significant upward cost adjustment instead of evaluating whether Markon’s proposed costs were realistic for its unique technical approach. GAO sustained the protest, finding that the CIA evaluated proposals using unstated criteria and failed to conduct the cost realism analysis required by the solicitation and procurement regulations.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Island Creek Associates, LLC, B-423301.3 (Dec. 5, 2025), Island Creek Associates protested the Department of the Navy’s award to StraCon Services Group for program management contractor support services. Island Creek did not challenge any aspect of the Navy’s evaluation of proposals. Instead, its protest focused solely on alleged organizational and personal conflicts of interest related to StraCon’s subcontractor, Precise Systems Inc., who was the incumbent contractor. Island Creek claimed that Precise gained an unfair competitive advantage from access to proprietary information and due to the involvement of a senior Navy official whose wife worked for Precise. GAO denied the protest in its entirety and provided a detailed analysis of conflict of interest law.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC, B-423690 (Nov. 20, 2025​), CLFS protested an $80 million award by the Department of the Navy to CCS King George 2 LLC (CCS KG) for base operations support at Naval Base Coronado. CLFS alleged that the Navy unreasonably evaluated proposals under the corporate experience, past performance and price factors, and improperly failed to consider certain performance data that it claimed was “too close at hand.” GAO rejected all of CLFS’ challenges, finding that the Navy acted within its discretion and in accordance with the solicitation.​

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In National Energy Security Operations, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-774 (Sept. 30, 2025, reissued Nov. 24, 2025), National Energy Security Operations, LLC challenged a $128 million Department of Energy (DOE) award to Strategic Storage Partners, LLC (SSP) for the management and operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Court agreed with National Energy that DOE improperly applied unstated evaluation criteria in assessing the company’s Contractor Assurance System (CAS) approach, a rare such win on the merits. But National Energy’s broader protest failed because the Court concluded that this error did not affect the outcome. SSP’s proposal was simply too far ahead on the overall Management Approach factor, which was the most important evaluation factor. The decision provides a strong reminder that showing error is not enough, a protestor must also prove prejudice.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Marathon Targets, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-121 (Nov. 10, 2025, reissued Nov. 21, 2025), the Court of Federal Claims denied Marathon Targets Inc.’s request for a permanent injunction that sought to overturn the Marine Corps’ disqualification of Marathon and block performance of the awarded contract to MVP Robotics, Inc. Marathon, the incumbent, had been disqualified after the Marine Corps inadvertently disclosed protected source selection information to it, and Marathon failed to properly handle that information. Although the Court previously denied Marathon’s request for a preliminary injunction, this opinion resolves the case on the merits—and again sides with the agency. The Court found that the Marine Corps’ decision to disqualify Marathon was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that Marathon lacked standing to challenge the award. The opinion also rejects each of Marathon’s evaluation-based claims against MVP’s proposal.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-312 (Nov. 20, 2025), Hydraulics International, Inc. (HII) challenged the Army’s decision to award a sole-source contract for aviation ground power units (AGPU) and related services to Sun Test Systems, Inc. HII argued that the Army violated FAR Part 10 by failing to conduct meaningful market research and that HII was improperly excluded from consideration. While the Court agreed that the Army’s market research was deficient, it ultimately dismissed the protest for lack of standing, finding that HII could not deliver a compliant product in time and therefore could not have received the award. This decision is a rare one where the Court clearly disapproved of the agency’s actions, but still had to rule in the agency’s favor because the protester couldn’t get over the standing hurdle.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-695 (Nov. 20, 2025), Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. (AMSG) protested the Department of Energy’s award to Harkcon, Inc. for administrative support services related to nuclear material transport. AMSG alleged that Harkcon made a material misrepresentation by proposing its Chief Operating Officer as an on-site, full-time program manager in New Mexico, claiming that the representation was false and not credible because the individual was based in Virginia and already served as the program manager for two other active contracts. AMSG also requested to supplement the record with discovery and post-award declarations to support its claim. The Court rejected both the misrepresentation theory and the request for discovery. Notably, the Court emphasized the importance of sticking to the administrative record and relied heavily on admissions made by AMSG’s own counsel during oral argument.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Ernst & Young, LLP, B-423491.2 (Sept. 26, 2025), Ernst & Young (EY) protested the scope of corrective action taken by the Department of the Army following EY’s earlier protest of the Army’s award to Guidehouse for support of the Army Financial Improvement program. EY’s initial protest resulted in a voluntary corrective action, during which the agency announced it would reevaluate proposals and make a new award decision. However, during implementation of that corrective action, Guidehouse informed the Army that one of its proposed key personnel was no longer available. That development led the Army to open limited discussions focused on key personnel substitution, which in turn became the focus of EY’s follow-on protest.

Continue reading ›