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

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 ›

Posted

by

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​.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

GAOvsUSCoFC_logos-300x169When a government contractor files a bid protest, choosing the right forum can significantly impact the outcome. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) are the two primary venues, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. This post breaks down the key differences to help contractors make an informed decision.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In System Studies & Simulation, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Nos. 24-1429, et al. (March 4, 2025)​, three disappointed offerors, including System Studies & Simulation (S3), protested the U.S. Army’s decision not to conduct discussions before awarding a contract for Advanced Helicopter Flight Training Support (AHFTS) services. The protesters argued that the Army violated Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) § 215.306(c), which states that discussions “should” be held for procurements over $100 million​.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

Raytheon Company v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1824C (Feb. 24, 2025)​ addresses a long-standing legal gray area: Can the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) hear bid protests involving Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs)? In Raytheon v. United States, the Court ruled definitively: Yes, it can. This landmark decision confirms that the Court is the de facto forum for bid protests challenging Department of Defense (DoD) OTA decisions—at least where the agency is pursuing products or services for its direct benefit.

Continue reading ›