In SteerBridge Strategies, LLC, B-422831.2, et al. (Dec. 31, 2024), SteerBridge, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), protested the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to amend, rather than cancel, a solicitation for modern claims processing support services. The company argued that the amendment effectively created an improper sole-source procurement favoring certain competitors and that the VA’s market research was inadequate.
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.
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.
In MicroTechnologies LLC, B-423197.2, et al. (March 4, 2025), MicroTechnologies LLC protested the U.S. Air Force’s award of a task order to Trace Systems Inc. for Combined Air and Space Center Operations Center (CAOC) communications support. The protest challenged multiple aspects of the Air Force’s evaluation, asserting that agency failed to properly assess: (1) the offerors’ professional employee compensation plans in accordance with FAR 52.222-46; (2) the realism of the offerors’ non-professional direct labor rates; (3) the price risk analysis required under DFARS 252.204-7024; and (4) a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) involving a former government official.
When 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.
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.
In TISTA Science and Technology Corporation, B-422891.2, et al. (Jan. 23, 2025), TISTA protested a National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarding of a task order for software development services to Tantus Technologies, alleging improper evaluation of both offerors’ technical proposals. The core issue was GAO’s finding that NIH treated TISTA and Tantus unequally, particularly with respect to their surge staffing approaches, despite nearly identical solutions.
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.
When filing a bid protest, timing is everything. Missing a deadline can be fatal to your case, even if your claims are otherwise strong. This post breaks down critical bid protest deadlines and common timing pitfalls to help contractors avoid costly mistakes.
If you’re a government contractor considering a bid protest, the first question is: where should you file—the specific agency in question, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)? Each offers different advantages and limitations. This post breaks down the key differences, so you can make an informed decision.
