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.
The Decision
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the protest, ruling that:
- No Standing Without a Valid Protest: The Court held that because Marathon was reasonably disqualified from the procurement, it no longer had a “direct economic interest” in the solicitation, and thus lacked standing to bring its protest.
- Disqualification Was Reasonable and Well-Justified: The Marine Corps’ disqualification was based on Marathon’s retention and use of protected source selection information, its dissemination of that information to non-attorneys, and its misrepresentation of how it learned certain details. The Court found the agency acted reasonably in concluding that Marathon’s conduct created at least an appearance of impropriety, which alone was a sufficient basis for exclusion.
- Due Process and First Amendment Claims Rejected: The Court rejected Marathon’s procedural due process arguments, finding it had received meaningful notice and opportunity to respond. It also dismissed Marathon’s First Amendment claim, holding that improperly using protected information is not protected “petitioning activity” under the Constitution. The Court further explained that Marathon did not have a First Amendment right not to comply with regulations governing the use of source selection sensitive information. As such, the Court held that Marathon’s attempt to use and retain that information was not protected activity.
- Evaluation Challenges All Fail: Even if Marathon had standing, its challenges to MVP’s award failed on the merits. The Court upheld the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, price, and compliance with small business and subcontracting rules. The Court found that each of Marathon’s complaints was either unsupported or within the agency’s broad discretion.
- No Injunctive Relief Without Success on the Merits: Because Marathon failed to prove any procurement error, the Court denied its request for a permanent injunction. Without success on the merits, the remaining factors weren’t even reached.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
- Disqualification for Appearance of Impropriety Alone Is Permitted: An actual conflict of interest isn’t required. If your actions create an appearance of impropriety or undermine procurement integrity, that alone can justify exclusion.
- Procurement Integrity Is a Two-Way Street: Even if the agency makes a mistake, like accidentally disclosing source selection information, the burden shifts to the contractor to act responsibly. Mishandling that data can end your protest before it begins.
- Standards Remain High at the Court for Displacing an Awardee: Courts will uphold agency evaluations and award decisions as long as they are rational and well-documented. Minor disagreements or speculative allegations won’t move the needle.