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…
The Bid Protest Debrief
GAO Backs Agency’s Broad View of Relevance in Past Performance Evaluation
In SRM Group, LLC, B-423695 (Sept. 25, 2025), SRM Group, the incumbent contractor, protested the Army’s award of a contract for lodging and transportation services at Camp Robinson to BryMak & Associates. SRM argued that the agency’s past performance evaluation was flawed and that the resulting best-value tradeoff was unreasonable.…
COFC Enforces TAA Limits: “Exorbitantly High” Prices Don’t Justify Award to Non-TAA-Compliant Supplier
In Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-cv-279 (Nov. 17, 2025), Cosette Pharmaceuticals protested the Department of Veterans Affairs’ decision to award a contract for the drug prasugrel to Golden State Medical Supplies. Cosette argued that the VA violated the Trade Agreements Act (TAA)…
Requirement Was Clear, Proposal Wasn’t: GAO Upholds Rejection Over QC Plan Omission
In QA Engineering, LLC, B-423716, B-423716.2 (Sept. 30, 2025), QA Engineering protested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to award a contract for the construction of a pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) to Koman Advantage. QA argued that the agency improperly found its proposal technically unacceptable because it did not…
Unmitigated Conflict and Unexplained Ratings Sink FEC Award in GAO Protest
In Castro & Company, LLC, B-423689, (Nov. 13, 2025), Castro & Company protested the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) decision to award a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Contracts Management Enterprises (CME) for financial management and accounting support services. Castro argued that CME had an unmitigable impaired objectivity organizational conflict of…
COFC Backs Major Army Award Despite “Curious” Past Performance Analysis
In Bowhead Enterprise, Science and Technology, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2110C (Nov. 5, 2025), Bowhead challenged the Army’s award of a systems engineering and program management contract to DNI Emerging Technologies, raising a host of claims including: an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest (OCI),…
COFC Says Fears of Money-Losing Task Orders Aren’t Enough to Win a Protest
In Active Deployment Systems, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-968C (Oct. 30, 2025), Active Deployment Systems (ADS) challenged several aspects of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) award of 42 indefinite delivery /indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for detention related services under a solicitation issued by…
Inside the Scope, Outside the Court: Task Order Protest Dismissed on Jurisdictional Ground
In United Aero Group, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-248 (September 29, 2025), United Aero Group, LLC challenged the Department of State’s decision to direct AAR Government Services, Inc. to perform helicopter maintenance work at a Florida facility under an existing task order. United Aero…
No Unstated Criteria, No Double Counting and No OCI: GAO Rejects Peraton’s Claims in $1 Billion Procurement
In Peraton Inc., B-423639 (September 17, 2025), Peraton Inc. protested the General Services Administration’s award of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) for IT lifecycle support services at U.S. Strategic Command. Peraton challenged several aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision. It argued that the agency…
Unsigned SF-33? GAO Says That’s Not a Dealbreaker
In Noblis MSD, LLC, B-423599 (September 11, 2025), Noblis MSD, the incumbent contractor, protested the Navy’s award of a technical support services contract to Solute, Inc. Noblis raised several arguments, including that Solute’s proposal was noncompliant because it lacked a signed Standard Form (SF) 33, that the agency unreasonably evaluated…