In Wright Brothers Aero, Inc., B-423326.2 (July 7, 2025), Wright Brothers Aero protested the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) reaffirmation of a contract award for aircraft refueling services to Premier Jet Services, arguing that the agency failed to reasonably implement corrective action and improperly evaluated proposals. But GAO dismissed the protest as untimely, finding that Wright Brothers waited too long after learning about DLA’s award decision.
In SMS Data Products Group, Inc., B-423341, et al. (May 29, 2025), SMS Data Products Group protested a task order award to Abacus Technology Corporation for intranet control support services. While the protest raised several price and evaluation challenges, the most significant issue was timeliness—specifically, when the debriefing ended and the protest clock began ticking. Although the agency gave SMS until February 14 to submit enhanced debriefing questions, the applicable regulation only allowed two business days from the February 11 initial debriefing, making the real deadline February 13. SMS followed the agency’s stated timeline, but GAO still held that the debriefing was closed as of February 11, when it was first issued, and evaluated the protest accordingly. Thankfully, SMS filed its protest early—out of an abundance of caution—and avoided a trap that could have resulted in its entire protest being dismissed as untimely.
In DirectViz Solutions, LLC, B-423366, et al. (June 11, 2025), DirectViz Solutions protested the Army’s issuance of a task order to Peraton for cybersecurity information technology support services for the Army’s Global Cyber Center (GCC). DirectViz alleged that Peraton’s simultaneous performance of a related task order supporting the Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER) created an impaired objectivity OCI—a conflict that Peraton failed to disclose, and that the agency failed to meaningfully investigate. GAO sustained the protest—a rare outcome in OCI cases—concluding that the Army’s OCI review was inadequate, and that Peraton’s overlapping roles posed a significant potential conflict.
In AIX Tech, LLC, B-423417, et al., June 11, 2025, AIX Tech protested the award by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) of a task order to Defense Solutions Group (DSG) for strategic advisory support services, challenging the evaluation of DSG’s proposal, the best-value tradeoff decision, and alleging an undisclosed conflict of interest (OCI) tied to a personal relationship between an agency employee and the chief executive officer of DSG’s joint venture partner. GAO dismissed most of the protest as legally insufficient and denied the remainder after finding no evidence of impropriety.
In Red River Science & Technology, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2035C (June 18, 2025), Red River challenged multiple aspects of an Army procurement under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) Program, including the reopening of discussions, allowing a previously disqualified offeror (Vanquish) back into the competition, issuing a midstream amendment, and the treatment of discussions and debriefings. The Court upheld the Army’s conduct, even where it acknowledged procedural quirks, based on the agency’s ultimate aim to ensure the government obtained the best value.
In KL3, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2028 (June 2, 2025, reissued June 12, 2025), KL3 challenged the Department of Defense’s award of two sole-source contracts under the SBA’s 8(a) program, arguing that the agency improperly circumvented small business rules by breaking up and reclassifying work previously solicited under the ENCORE III procurement. KL3 contended that the awards to an 8(a) firm violated 13 C.F.R. § 124.504(a), which bars procuring agencies from shifting previously set-aside small business work into the 8(a) program. Despite the legal nuance, KL3’s protest was dismissed for lack of standing and failure to prove prejudice.
In Innovative Management & Technology Approaches, Inc., B-423190, et al., Mar. 3, 2025, IMTAS protested its exclusion from a competition run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after the agency rejected its proposal based on a $0.01 discrepancy in one labor rate listed on its pricing template. The error—a clear scrivener’s mistake—did not impact the actual quoted labor rate or total evaluated price. IMTAS argued that the agency should have either ignored or clarified the harmless typo. GAO agreed the exclusion was unreasonable—but ultimately denied the protest because IMTAS failed to demonstrate prejudice. The case also touched on the limits of the “too close at hand” doctrine in past performance and technical evaluations.
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.
