Articles Posted in U.S. Army

Posted

In Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-312 (Nov. 20, 2025), Hydraulics International, Inc. (HII) challenged the Army’s decision to award a sole-source contract for aviation ground power units (AGPU) and related services to Sun Test Systems, Inc. HII argued that the Army violated FAR Part 10 by failing to conduct meaningful market research and that HII was improperly excluded from consideration. While the Court agreed that the Army’s market research was deficient, it ultimately dismissed the protest for lack of standing, finding that HII could not deliver a compliant product in time and therefore could not have received the award. This decision is a rare one where the Court clearly disapproved of the agency’s actions, but still had to rule in the agency’s favor because the protester couldn’t get over the standing hurdle.

Continue reading ›

Posted

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 voluntary corrective action, during which the agency announced it would reevaluate proposals and make a new award decision. However, during implementation of that corrective action, Guidehouse informed the Army that one of its proposed key personnel was no longer available. That development led the Army to open limited discussions focused on key personnel substitution, which in turn became the focus of EY’s follow-on protest.

Continue reading ›

Posted

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. At the heart of the protest was SRM’s claim that BryMak’s past performance references did not merit the same “substantial confidence” rating that SRM received. SRM challenged the relevance of BryMak’s references, the inclusion of a subcontractor’s limited experience and the agency’s treatment of SRM’s own incumbent performance. GAO rejected each of these arguments, finding the evaluation well-documented and consistent with the solicitation.

Continue reading ›

Posted

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), flaws in the agency’s post-award OCI investigation, unfair comparative technical evaluations, erroneous past performance ratings and a flawed best-value tradeoff. The protest also alleged that DNI’s proposal relied solely on subcontractor past performance and that Bowhead’s ratings were unreasonably low despite being the incumbent. The Court denied all claims, reinforcing several key principles of protest law.

Continue reading ›

Posted

After the GAO indicated it would likely sustain Perimeter Security Partners’ protest challenging a task order award for access control point maintenance, the Army took corrective action—but only after filing its agency report and participating in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the cognizant GAO attorney.  Perimeter then requested reimbursement of its protest costs, arguing that its grounds were clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed in taking corrective action. The GAO agreed, finding that the agency should have acted earlier based on the protest record, and that all protest grounds were intertwined and not severable. (Perimeter Security Partners, LLC—Costs, B-422666.2, Aug. 8, 2025)

The Decision
The GAO granted the protester’s request for reimbursement of costs, ruling that:

  1. Protest Grounds Were Clearly Meritorious: GAO determined that at least two protest grounds—the disparate treatment in past performance evaluation and the flawed best-value tradeoff—were not just viable but likely to result in a sustain. GAO had advised the parties of this in an outcome prediction ADR session, and confirmed that the agency’s evaluation decisions were inconsistent with the record and evaluation criteria.
  2. Corrective Action Was Unduly Delayed: GAO emphasized that corrective action is only considered “prompt” if it’s taken before the agency report is due. Here, the Army waited until after ADR and multiple rounds of briefing. That delay unnecessarily increased protest costs, which GAO seeks to discourage.
  3. Agency’s Arguments Were Unpersuasive: The Army argued that because GAO did not promise cost reimbursement during ADR, it shouldn’t be required to pay. GAO rejected this, clarifying that cost entitlement flows from undue delay, not from ADR participation. The agency also failed to show that any protest grounds were clearly severable, so GAO awarded full cost reimbursement.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. You May Be Entitled to Protest Costs, but Only If the Protest Was Strong: GAO will only recommend cost reimbursement where protest grounds are clearly meritorious, meaning the agency had no defensible legal position and should have seen it early.
  2. Delay Can Cost the Government: If the agency waits until after briefing or ADR to take corrective action, even if it avoids a formal sustain, it may still have to pay the protester’s legal and consultant fees.
  3. All-or-Nothing Depends on Severability: Protesters can recover all costs if their successful claims are intertwined with the rest of the protest. If claims are clearly separate and weak, GAO may reduce or deny reimbursement for those portions.
  4. Participation in ADR Does Not Waive Cost Claims: An agency’s voluntary ADR participation does not shield it from protest cost liability. Protesters should not be discouraged from requesting costs just because ADR was used.
Posted

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

In Red River Science & Technology, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2035C (June 18, 2025), Red River challenged multiple aspects of an Army procurement under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) Program, including the reopening of discussions, allowing a previously disqualified offeror (Vanquish) back into the competition, issuing a midstream amendment, and the treatment of discussions and debriefings. The Court upheld the Army’s conduct, even where it acknowledged procedural quirks, based on the agency’s ultimate aim to ensure the government obtained the best value.

Continue reading ›

Posted

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

In Warrior Focused Solutions, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1695 (March 4, 2025), Warrior Focused Solutions (WFS) protested the U.S. Army’s award of a contract for Mission Support Services (MSS) at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) to Valiant Global Defense Services, Inc. (Valiant). WFS argued that the Army’s evaluation was flawed due to: (1) the Army’s failure to hold discussions despite the Army’s acquisition plan stating they would be conducted; (2) the Army’s unreasonable evaluation of WFS’s technical and small business participation proposals that led to a lower rating; (3) the Agency’s improper cost realism analysis, which allegedly adjusted WFS’s proposed costs unfairly; and (4) multiple errors in the Army’s best-value tradeoff decision, which WFS claimed was based on flawed evaluations.​

Continue reading ›