Posted

Agency Can Take Offeror at Its Word: COFC Finds No Misrepresentation and Denies Discovery Request

by

In Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-695 (Nov. 20, 2025), Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. (AMSG) protested the Department of Energy’s award to Harkcon, Inc. for administrative support services related to nuclear material transport. AMSG alleged that Harkcon made a material misrepresentation by proposing its Chief Operating Officer as an on-site, full-time program manager in New Mexico, claiming that the representation was false and not credible because the individual was based in Virginia and already served as the program manager for two other active contracts. AMSG also requested to supplement the record with discovery and post-award declarations to support its claim. The Court rejected both the misrepresentation theory and the request for discovery. Notably, the Court emphasized the importance of sticking to the administrative record and relied heavily on admissions made by AMSG’s own counsel during oral argument.


The Decision
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. Material Misrepresentation Claim Falls Flat: AMSG alleged that Harkcon misrepresented its intent for its COO to serve as the on-site, full-time program manager. While on its face this claim raised credibility concerns, the Court found that Harkcon had clarified, both in proposal responses and at oral argument, that the COO intended to relocate and relinquish his other roles. AMSG conceded it was “theoretically possible” for this to happen, and the Court found no evidence that the agency’s acceptance of the representation was arbitrary.
  2. Declarations About Post-Award Events Are Outside the Record: AMSG submitted a declaration from the incumbent program manager claiming Harkcon was actively recruiting someone else for the role. The Court refused to consider this declaration, explaining that judicial review is limited to the administrative record and that considering new evidence would effectively create de novo review, which was clearly disallowed under Axiom and Camp v. Pitts.
  3. Discovery Denied, As Record Was Sufficient for Judicial Review: The Court denied AMSG’s motion to depose Harkcon personnel and supplement the record, reiterating that supplementation is only allowed when necessary for effective review. Here, the Court found that even AMSG admitted its claims could be resolved based on the existing record. The Court also rejected the notion that a declaration from a disappointed bidder should automatically trigger discovery, warning that such a rule would open the door to abuse.
  4. Admissions During Oral Argument Undermined the Protest: The Court pointed to several key statements made by AMSG’s counsel at oral argument, particularly acknowledgments that it was “possible” for Harkcon’s COO to fulfill the program manager role and that discovery was not necessary to decide the protest. These admissions weakened AMSG’s credibility and undercut its claims.
  5. Speculative Claims Don’t Justify Discovery: The Court warned against setting a precedent where discovery could be triggered by any speculative declaration. It emphasized that protesters must present “hard facts,” not innuendo or suspicion, to justify deviating from record-based review.
  6. Other Arguments Rejected: The Court also rejected AMSG’s arguments about transition plans, the lack of an alternate program manager, security clearance issues and best value tradeoff claims. In each instance, the Court found the agency’s decision rational and consistent with the solicitation.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Misrepresentation Claims Require Hard Evidence: Alleging a material misrepresentation is serious business. You’ll need more than a suspicion or a declaration to win. This is especially true if the agency accepted clarifications and the record supports its finding.
  2. Don’t Expect Discovery Without a Solid Justification: Courts strictly limit discovery in bid protests. If the administrative record is sufficient, the court will not let you expand it just to go fishing for more evidence.
  3. What You Say in Oral Argument Matters: Be mindful of what your counsel concedes at oral argument. In this case, the Court relied heavily on AMSG’s own statements to deny key parts of the protest.
  4. The Administrative Record Is King: Courts review what was before the agency at the time of the award, not post hoc declarations or speculation. Protesters must build their arguments on that foundation.