Posted

COFC Backs Major Army Award Despite “Curious” Past Performance Analysis

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.

The Decision
The COFC denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. OCI Investigation Was Thorough and Reasonable: Bowhead alleged that DNI’s subcontractors created an impaired objectivity OCI, and argued that the Army’s post-award review was superficial. The Court rejected that argument, finding the contracting officer’s investigation, which involved dozens of interviews, document reviews and declarations to be detailed, well-supported, and timely, even though it occurred after award. The Court emphasized the “strong presumption” of good faith in agency declarations and refused Bowhead’s invitation to second-guess their credibility without “well-nigh irrefragable proof.”
  2. Acceptable Ratings Were Justified by the Record: Bowhead received three strengths and no weaknesses for Technical Factor 1 but was rated merely “Acceptable.” The Court upheld the Army’s rationale that those strengths did not show the “thorough” understanding required for a “Good” rating. The Court also explained that the resolution of a lone weakness during discussions likewise did not entitle Bowhead to an automatic bump in rating, as agencies are not obligated to reward every resolved issue with a higher score.
  3. Past Performance Rating Was Not Entitlement-Based: Despite being the incumbent, Bowhead received only a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating. The Court explained that incumbency does not automatically justify a higher rating, especially when the agency considers the relevance, scope and complexity of experience. The Court held that the Army reasonably determined that DNI’s past performance, submitted entirely by a proposed subcontractor, was more favorable than Bowhead’s, and further explained that the solicitation did not require offerors to submit their own past performance.
  4. “Too Close at Hand” Doctrine Misapplied: Bowhead argued that the Army failed to consider readily available performance data. The Court disagreed, clarifying that the doctrine applies when an agency fails to consider such information, not when it simply disagrees with the protester’s view of its significance. Here, the Army did consider the relevant records, and Bowhead’s claim boiled down to disputed interpretation, not omission.
  5. Court Won’t Reweigh Subjective Judgments: Though the Court admitted that some of the agency’s past performance findings were “curious,” it still found them within the bounds of rationality. As long as the agency documents its reasoning and considers the right factors, courts will not second-guess subjective evaluations.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Incumbency Doesn’t Guarantee High Ratings: Being the incumbent may help, but it does not entitle you to a “Good” or “Substantial Confidence” rating. Your proposal still must be comparatively stronger.
  2. Subcontractor Past Performance Alone Can Be Sufficient: Agencies may credit past performance from subcontractors, even exclusively, if the RFP allows it. And there is no requirement for offerors to submit their own past performance examples unless explicitly stated.
  3. OCI Investigations Can Be Post-Award, So Long As They Are Thorough: While pre-award is preferred, a post-award OCI investigation is acceptable if the agency documents a serious, fact-based analysis. Alleging bias or pretext in such investigations requires hard evidence, not speculation.
  4. Strengths Are Not All Created Equal: Three strengths and no weaknesses may not get you a “Good” if your proposal lacks depth. Ratings are not formulaic. Substance and comparative detail matter.
  5. “Too Close at Hand” Doctrine Does Not Require Higher Ratings: If the agency considered the relevant information that was close at hand, your disagreement with how they interpreted it won’t turn a reviewable issue into a winning protest.