In Kako’o Spectrum Healthcare Solutions, LLC, B-421127.5, et al., May 28, 2025, Kako’o Spectrum Healthcare Solutions (KSHS) protested the U.S. Marine Corps’ award to Cognito Systems, arguing that Cognito’s proposal exceeded the page limit and that the agency unreasonably failed to assign additional strengths to KSHS’s own proposal. KSHS claimed that if the agency had enforced the page limit and evaluated both proposals fairly, it would have won.
In A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc., B-423433, May 20, 2025, A2A Integrated Logistics protested a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contract award after learning that its proposal had been rejected due to a technical issue—specifically, the agency’s email server allegedly blocked the submission. A2A maintained that its proposal was timely submitted and should have been considered. However, despite discovering the issue shortly after the submission deadline, A2A waited more than 10 days before filing a formal protest with the agency. After the agency dismissed that protest as untimely, A2A turned to GAO. But GAO likewise dismissed the protest, holding that A2A missed the strict filing deadline and emphasizing that informal communication with the agency does not extend the protest clock.
In Lockheed Martin Corporation, B-423294, May 2, 2025, Lockheed Martin protested the Air Force’s handling of potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) in a procurement for Tactical Operations Center – Light prototype systems. Lockheed alleged that Science Applications International Corp., a competitor, had unmitigated OCIs due to its work as a software integrator on a separate Air Force program and its role in a software consortium. Lockheed also challenged the adequacy of the solicitation and a last-minute OCI waiver issued by the agency.
In Marathon Targets, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-121 (March 13, 2025, reissued March 24, 2025), Marathon Targets sought to block a U.S. Marine Corps contract awarded to MVP Robotics for Trackless Mobile Infantry Targets after the Marine Corps disqualified Marathon from the competition. The disqualification stemmed from the Marine Corps’ inadvertent disclosure of MVP’s technical evaluation, which included proprietary and source selection information. Instead of immediately segregating or disclaiming use of the information, Marathon retained, reviewed and referenced it in its draft protest, shared it internally (including with non-attorneys), and made statements suggesting it could not “unring the bell.” The Marine Corps ultimately found that this created an unmitigable organizational conflict of interest and an appearance of impropriety, leading to disqualification. Marathon challenged that decision and sought a preliminary injunction to halt MVP’s performance and reinstate itself in the competition.
In Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC, B-423332, April 29, 2025, Davenergy-VCI protested the cancellation by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) of a solicitation for architectural engineering construction management services for medical facility construction projects required by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in Oregon and Washington. Davenergy had already been advised by the Corps that it was found to be the most highly qualified offeror when the agency unexpectedly pulled the plug.
In FI Consulting, Inc., B-423274 (April 11, 2025), FI Consulting, Inc. (FIC) protested its elimination from a procurement for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program support services after the agency rejected its proposal for including a company logo (a picture containing text) on its cover page—an act the agency deemed noncompliant with explicit formatting instructions in the solicitation.
The Mission Essential Group, LLC (MEG) protested the scope of corrective action by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) following a previous protest involving a linguist support services procurement. In The Mission Essential Group, LLC, B-421745.4 (April 2, 2025), MEG claimed that the agency’s approach, which allowed only limited proposal revisions tailored to specific evaluation notices (ENs), was improperly restrictive and unfairly benefited the awardee, Worldwide Language Resources, LLC (WWLR).
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.
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.
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.
