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

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 ›

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 ›