Department of Defense (DoD)

Posted December 2, 2025

DOE’s Misstep Didn’t Matter: COFC Says Errors Not Enough to Overturn $128 Million Award

In National Energy Security Operations, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-774 (Sept. 30, 2025, reissued Nov. 24, 2025), National Energy Security Operations, LLC challenged a $128 million Department of Energy (DOE) award to Strategic Storage Partners, LLC (SSP) for the management and operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Court agreed with National Energy that DOE improperly applied unstated evaluation criteria in assessing the company’s Contractor Assurance System (CAS) approach, a rare such win on the merits. But National Energy’s broader protest failed because the Court concluded that this error did not affect the outcome. SSP’s proposal was simply too far ahead on the overall Management Approach factor, which was the most important evaluation factor. The decision provides a strong reminder that showing error is not enough, a protestor must also prove prejudice.

Posted August 14, 2025

Protester Pulls Off Trifecta: GAO Sustains on Technical, Past Performance and OCI Grounds

by Matt Carter

Matt Carter

Emissary LLC, the incumbent contractor, protested the Department of Defense’s Washington Headquarters Services’ award of a contract to Gemini Industries for technical support services to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict. (See emissary LLC, B-422388.3, et al., July 29, 2025.) GAO sustained the protest, finding that the agency conducted a flawed technical evaluation, improperly credited past performance, and failed to evaluate the impact of an OCI mitigation plan that altered the awardee’s technical approach. This is a rare case where a protester prevailed on both evaluation and organizational conflict of interest (OCI) grounds, offering a roadmap for what can go wrong when agencies rush or overlook key details in an awardee’s proposal.

Posted June 18, 2025

COFC Warns: Protesters Must Prove Capability, Not Just Claim It

by Matt Carter

Matt Carter

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.

Posted March 5, 2025

COFC Claims Its Turf: Court Affirms Jurisdiction Over OTA Protests

by Matt Carter

Matt Carter

Raytheon Company v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1824C (Feb. 24, 2025) addresses a long-standing legal gray area: Can the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) hear bid protests involving Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs)? In Raytheon v. United States, the Court ruled definitively: Yes, it can. This landmark decision confirms that the Court is the de facto forum for bid protests challenging Department of Defense (DoD) OTA decisions—at least where the agency is pursuing products or services for its direct benefit.