Articles Posted in U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)

Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Marathon Targets, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-121 (Nov. 10, 2025, reissued Nov. 21, 2025), the Court of Federal Claims denied Marathon Targets Inc.’s request for a permanent injunction that sought to overturn the Marine Corps’ disqualification of Marathon and block performance of the awarded contract to MVP Robotics, Inc. Marathon, the incumbent, had been disqualified after the Marine Corps inadvertently disclosed protected source selection information to it, and Marathon failed to properly handle that information. Although the Court previously denied Marathon’s request for a preliminary injunction, this opinion resolves the case on the merits—and again sides with the agency. The Court found that the Marine Corps’ decision to disqualify Marathon was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that Marathon lacked standing to challenge the award. The opinion also rejects each of Marathon’s evaluation-based claims against MVP’s proposal.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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

by

In Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-695 (Nov. 20, 2025), Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. (AMSG) protested the Department of Energy’s award to Harkcon, Inc. for administrative support services related to nuclear material transport. AMSG alleged that Harkcon made a material misrepresentation by proposing its Chief Operating Officer as an on-site, full-time program manager in New Mexico, claiming that the representation was false and not credible because the individual was based in Virginia and already served as the program manager for two other active contracts. AMSG also requested to supplement the record with discovery and post-award declarations to support its claim. The Court rejected both the misrepresentation theory and the request for discovery. Notably, the Court emphasized the importance of sticking to the administrative record and relied heavily on admissions made by AMSG’s own counsel during oral argument.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-cv-279 (Nov. 17, 2025), Cosette Pharmaceuticals protested the Department of Veterans Affairs’ decision to award a contract for the drug prasugrel to Golden State Medical Supplies. Cosette argued that the VA violated the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) because Cosette was the only offeror to submit a TAA-compliant proposal. Cosette manufactured its version of the drug in Germany, a compliant country under the TAA. By contrast, the awardee’s version of the drug was manufactured in India, a non-compliant country under the TAA.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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

by

In Active Deployment Systems, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-968C (Oct. 30, 2025), Active Deployment Systems (ADS) challenged several aspects of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) award of 42 indefinite delivery /indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for detention related services under a solicitation issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ADS alleged that ICE violated the terms of the solicitation by awarding far more contracts than advertised, and that the solicitation’s pricing structure—which included fixed price caps—was irrational and arbitrary. ADS sought to halt the award of any task orders and urged the Court to find that it had been competitively harmed by the agency’s actions. But the Court disagreed, finding no violation of the solicitation and, most notably, no prejudice, even assuming ADS’ complaints about the competition had merit.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In United Aero Group, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-248 (September 29, 2025), United Aero Group, LLC challenged the Department of State’s decision to direct AAR Government Services, Inc. to perform helicopter maintenance work at a Florida facility under an existing task order. United Aero argued that the agency had violated both the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and the Rule of Two by assigning the work to AAR without opening it to competition or reserving it for small businesses. The Court, however, found that it lacked jurisdiction over the protest, and that the Rule of Two did not apply to the agency’s technical direction under the task order.

Continue reading ›

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 ›