In SOFITC3, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2064C (August 21, 2025), incumbent contractor SOFITC3 challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) award of a cybersecurity contract to Delviom, arguing that the agency’s evaluation was flawed on several fronts. SOFITC3 claimed that Delviom had improperly combined two separate FEMA contracts into a single “engagement” in its corporate experience submission, in violation of the solicitation requirements. It also alleged that DHS evaluated the proposals unequally by assigning strengths to Delviom that were not equally credited to SOFITC3’s similar technical content. Lastly, SOFITC3 argued that Delviom’s staffing plan was noncompliant and that the awardee’s price should have been rejected as unrealistic. The Court rejected all of these arguments, finding the DHS evaluation to be reasonable, well-documented and consistent with the solicitation. Notably, the Court found that the term “engagement” was patently ambiguous, meaning SOFITC3’s failure to challenge it before submitting its proposal resulted in a waiver.
The Decision
In denying the protest, the COFC ruled that:
- The “Engagement” Ambiguity Challenge Was Late: SOFITC3 argued Delviom violated the solicitation by combining two FEMA contracts into a single experience. But the Court found the term “engagement” was patently ambiguous and, since SOFITC3 failed to challenge it before bidding, the Court held it waived the argument.
- Agency’s Evaluation Was Reasonable: Even though only one of Delviom’s three projects was “roughly equal” to the $50M target, the agency found all three to be technically relevant. It downgraded Delviom’s rating accordingly (from “High Confidence” to “Some Confidence”) but still found the proposal competitive. DHS provided a coherent rationale and clear math for its calculations, which the Court declined to second-guess.
- No Material Misrepresentation Found: The Court rejected SOFITC3’s claim that Delviom misrepresented the size or structure of its contracts. The agency understood the relationship between the JV and prime work on SOFITC3’s reference contracts, and credited experience accordingly.
- Disparate Evaluation Allegation Falls Flat: SOFITC3 claimed its management and technical proposal was similar to Delviom’s and should have received similar strengths. But the Court found substantive differences, including detail level, specificity and proposal clarity, that justified the differing scores.
- Best Value Analysis Was Thorough: Even though SOFITC3 had stronger past performance and was the incumbent, its proposal received lower technical scores in every other area and was $3.3M more expensive. The agency clearly documented why Delviom’s proposal offered better overall value.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
- Challenge Ambiguities Early or Forever Hold Your Peace: If a term in the solicitation (like “engagement”) is unclear, you must protest before the proposal deadline. Courts will not entertain post-award challenges to patent ambiguities.
- Strengths Must Be Earned, Not Assumed: You don’t get credit for being similar. If your proposal lacks detail, clarity or added value, the agency is not obligated to give you a strength just because your competitor got one.
- Misrepresentation Allegations Must Be Specific and Supported: Accusations without documentary proof or with vague references to corporate structure will not hold up—especially if the agency addressed the concern on the record.
- Strong Past Performance Alone Will Not Guarantee the Incumbent the Follow-On Contract: While SOFITC3’s past performance was strong, its proposal was outscored in every other factor, including technical, management, staffing and price. DHS reasonably concluded that the overall superiority of Delviom’s lower-priced proposal outweighed SOFITC3’s one advantage—past performance—and the Court held that DHS was not obligated to pay a premium just to work with the incumbent.