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

Posted

by

In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2023-1970 (Decided Aug. 28, 2025), Percipient.ai challenged a task order award by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), alleging that the government violated 10 U.S.C. § 3453—a statutory preference for commercial items—by failing to fairly consider its AI platform. But Percipient had not submitted a bid, teamed with a prime, or otherwise participated in the procurement process. The core legal question became: Can a company that never submitted a proposal still be an “interested party” with standing to protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)? A Federal Circuit panel initially said yes. The government appealed, and the court took the case up en banc, ultimately reversing course.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Advanced Technology Systems Company v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-515C (July 16, 2025), Advanced Technology Systems Company (ATSC) protested the Navy’s award of a contract for a nationwide maritime surveillance system in Egypt to Forward Slope, Inc. (FSI). ATSC argued that the Navy’s best value determination was flawed, that it used a vague and inconsistent past performance evaluation framework, and that the agency disregarded highly relevant subcontractor past performance. The Court agreed, finding that ATSC had established multiple procurement errors that were both irrational and prejudicial, even though injunctive relief was denied due to national security concerns.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In SOFITC3, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2064C (August 21, 2025), incumbent contractor SOFITC3 challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) award of a cybersecurity contract to Delviom, arguing that the agency’s evaluation was flawed on several fronts. SOFITC3 claimed that Delviom had improperly combined two separate FEMA contracts into a single “engagement” in its corporate experience submission, in violation of the solicitation requirements. It also alleged that DHS evaluated the proposals unequally by assigning strengths to Delviom that were not equally credited to SOFITC3’s similar technical content. Lastly, SOFITC3 argued that Delviom’s staffing plan was noncompliant and that the awardee’s price should have been rejected as unrealistic. The Court rejected all of these arguments, finding the DHS evaluation to be reasonable, well-documented and consistent with the solicitation. Notably, the Court found that the term “engagement” was patently ambiguous, meaning SOFITC3’s failure to challenge it before submitting its proposal resulted in a waiver.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In CAN Softtech Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1009C, July 29, 2025, CAN Softtech Inc. (CSI) protested the General Services Administration’s decision to cancel its award for IT support services for the Air Force, alleging that the agency’s corrective action—terminating the award and re-soliciting the requirement—lacked a rational basis. The court partially agreed, finding that while the initial reevaluation decision was reasonable, the later cancellation and resolicitation were arbitrary and unsupported. This case offers a strong reminder that agencies cannot simply invoke vague “ambiguities” to justify wiping the slate clean.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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

by

In KL3, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2028 (June 2, 2025, reissued June 12, 2025), KL3 challenged the Department of Defense’s award of two sole-source contracts under the SBA’s 8(a) program, arguing that the agency improperly circumvented small business rules by breaking up and reclassifying work previously solicited under the ENCORE III procurement. KL3 contended that the awards to an 8(a) firm violated 13 C.F.R. § 124.504(a), which bars procuring agencies from shifting previously set-aside small business work into the 8(a) program. Despite the legal nuance, KL3’s protest was dismissed for lack of standing and failure to prove prejudice.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Marathon Targets, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-121 (March 13, 2025, reissued March 24, 2025), Marathon Targets sought to block a U.S. Marine Corps contract awarded to MVP Robotics for Trackless Mobile Infantry Targets after the Marine Corps disqualified Marathon from the competition. The disqualification stemmed from the Marine Corps’ inadvertent disclosure of MVP’s technical evaluation, which included proprietary and source selection information. Instead of immediately segregating or disclaiming use of the information, Marathon retained, reviewed and referenced it in its draft protest, shared it internally (including with non-attorneys), and made statements suggesting it could not “unring the bell.” The Marine Corps ultimately found that this created an unmitigable organizational conflict of interest and an appearance of impropriety, leading to disqualification. Marathon challenged that decision and sought a preliminary injunction to halt MVP’s performance and reinstate itself in the competition.

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 a high-stakes procurement for medical services at the southern U.S. border, incumbent contractor Loyal Source challenged the handling by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of alleged Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violations and bias after a Washington Post article and whistleblower letters revealed internal details about the ongoing procurement. In Loyal Source Government Services, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1001 (Apr. 8, 2025)​​, Loyal Source argued that these disclosures tainted the procurement and that DHS failed to investigate or mitigate the harm adequately.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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 ›