Preselection

Posted February 17, 2026

Commercial Dreams, Custom Reality: GAO Rejects Commercial Item Challenge to Air Force Armament Tester RFP

In Marvin Test Solutions, Inc., B-423928; B-423928.2 (Jan. 28, 2026), Marvin Test Solutions filed a pre-award protest challenging the Department of the Air Force’s RFP for a common armament tester (CAT-F) system for F-15, F-16 and A-10 fighter aircraft. Marvin argued that the agency was required to conduct the procurement as a commercial item acquisition under FAR Part 12 and that the solicitation was unduly restrictive of competition, particularly with respect to a minimum screen size requirement for the handheld operational-level (O-level) tester.

Posted September 18, 2025

Executive Orders Don’t Trump the FAR: COFC Rejects Administration’s Sole-Source Justification

by Matt Carter

Matt Carter

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.

Posted March 18, 2025

No Preselection Here: Court of Federal Claims Rejects Blue Water Thinking’s Protest

by Matt Carter

Matt Carter

In Blue Water Thinking, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1641C (March 11, 2025), Blue Water Thinking (BWT) protested a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award a Program Support Integration (PSI) contract to GoldPath Communications JV, LLC (GoldPath). BWT argued that: (1) the VA’s best-value trade-off analysis was flawed; (2) GoldPath had an organizational conflict of interest (OCI); (3) the contracting officer preselected GoldPath before conducting the trade-off analysis; and (4) the VA breached its duty to consider proposals fairly.