In Kako’o Spectrum Healthcare Solutions, LLC, B-421127.5, et al., May 28, 2025, Kako’o Spectrum Healthcare Solutions (KSHS) protested the U.S. Marine Corps’ award to Cognito Systems, arguing that Cognito’s proposal exceeded the page limit and that the agency unreasonably failed to assign additional strengths to KSHS’s own proposal. KSHS claimed that if the agency had enforced the page limit and evaluated both proposals fairly, it would have won.
In A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc., B-423433, May 20, 2025, A2A Integrated Logistics protested a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contract award after learning that its proposal had been rejected due to a technical issue—specifically, the agency’s email server allegedly blocked the submission. A2A maintained that its proposal was timely submitted and should have been considered. However, despite discovering the issue shortly after the submission deadline, A2A waited more than 10 days before filing a formal protest with the agency. After the agency dismissed that protest as untimely, A2A turned to GAO. But GAO likewise dismissed the protest, holding that A2A missed the strict filing deadline and emphasizing that informal communication with the agency does not extend the protest clock.
In Lockheed Martin Corporation, B-423294, May 2, 2025, Lockheed Martin protested the Air Force’s handling of potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) in a procurement for Tactical Operations Center – Light prototype systems. Lockheed alleged that Science Applications International Corp., a competitor, had unmitigated OCIs due to its work as a software integrator on a separate Air Force program and its role in a software consortium. Lockheed also challenged the adequacy of the solicitation and a last-minute OCI waiver issued by the agency.
In Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC, B-423332, April 29, 2025, Davenergy-VCI protested the cancellation by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) of a solicitation for architectural engineering construction management services for medical facility construction projects required by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in Oregon and Washington. Davenergy had already been advised by the Corps that it was found to be the most highly qualified offeror when the agency unexpectedly pulled the plug.
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.
The Mission Essential Group, LLC (MEG) protested the scope of corrective action by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) following a previous protest involving a linguist support services procurement. In The Mission Essential Group, LLC, B-421745.4 (April 2, 2025), MEG claimed that the agency’s approach, which allowed only limited proposal revisions tailored to specific evaluation notices (ENs), was improperly restrictive and unfairly benefited the awardee, Worldwide Language Resources, LLC (WWLR).
In Perimeter Security Partners, LLC, B-422666.4 (March 11, 2025), Perimeter Security Partners (PSP) protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a task order to Low Voltage Wiring (LVW) for maintenance services at Army access control points. The Army rejected PSP’s technically stronger, lower-priced quote, rating it unacceptable due to two alleged deficiencies tied to exceeding a 15-page limit. PSP argued that the solicitation was ambiguous about whether certain charts—like an organizational chart and a response time chart—were excluded from the page count.
In SteerBridge Strategies, LLC, B-422831.2, et al. (Dec. 31, 2024), SteerBridge, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), protested the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to amend, rather than cancel, a solicitation for modern claims processing support services. The company argued that the amendment effectively created an improper sole-source procurement favoring certain competitors and that the VA’s market research was inadequate.
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.
When a government contractor files a bid protest, choosing the right forum can significantly impact the outcome. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) are the two primary venues, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. This post breaks down the key differences to help contractors make an informed decision.
The Bid Protest Debrief