Articles Posted in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Posted

by

In GovCIO, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Nos. 25-809 & 25-913 (August 18, 2025), in one of the first cases to test the impact of a Trump administration executive order (EO) on federal procurement, GovCIO and 22nd Century Technologies challenged the IRS’s sole-source bridge contract to Iron Mountain for scanning and digitizing incoming tax filings. The agency had bypassed competition, invoking an “urgent and compelling need” based on EO 14,247, which mandated digital payments and a shift away from paper-based systems by late 2025.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Competitive Innovations, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1773 (August 28, 2025), Competitive Innovations (CI) challenged the Transportation Security Administration’s decision to reject its revised proposal in a procurement for program management support services. TSA had disqualified CI for submitting a modification to its labor category mapping after the proposal deadline, and for relying on a GSA schedule modification that was not yet effective when its proposal was due. CI argued the agency’s actions were overly rigid and unfair, and that it should have been granted an extension. The Court disagreed, upholding the rejection and reiterating that when it comes to proposal deadlines in Federal procurements, late is late.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In FI Consulting, Inc., B-423274 (April 11, 2025​), FI Consulting, Inc. (FIC) protested its elimination from a procurement for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program support services after the agency rejected its proposal for including a company logo (a picture containing text) on its cover page—an act the agency deemed noncompliant with explicit formatting instructions in the solicitation.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Analysis, Studies, and Training International, LLC, et al. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Nos. 24-1720 & 25-76 (Consolidated) (April 14, 2025)​, two offerors were excluded from an Air Force procurement for drone training support after failing to meet SAM.gov requirements tied to women-owned small business (WOSB) certification and registration continuity. Both Analysis, Studies, and Training International, LLC (ASTI) and SOFIS-TRG, LLC (SOFIS) protested, arguing that the SAM-related issues were clerical or cured, but the Court upheld the agency’s decision, underscoring the strict enforcement of SAM compliance in federal contracting.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In MicroTechnologies LLC, B-423197.2, et al. (March 4, 2025)​, MicroTechnologies LLC protested the U.S. Air Force’s award of a task order to Trace Systems Inc. for Combined Air and Space Center Operations Center (CAOC) communications support. The protest challenged multiple aspects of the Air Force’s evaluation, asserting that agency failed to properly assess: (1) the offerors’ professional employee compensation plans in accordance with FAR 52.222-46; (2) the realism of the offerors’ non-professional direct labor rates; (3) the price risk analysis required under DFARS 252.204-7024; and (4) a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) involving a former government official.

Continue reading ›