U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Posted November 5, 2025

COFC Says Fears of Money-Losing Task Orders Aren’t Enough to Win a Protest

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.

Posted August 25, 2025

Being the Incumbent Does Not Guarantee the Win: COFC Upholds DHS Cybersecurity Award

by Matt Carter

Matt Carter

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.

Posted April 15, 2025

Court of Federal Claims Says Procurement Integrity Act Violation Doesn’t Doom Procurement

by Matt Carter

Matt Carter

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.