Tracking the latest developments at the GAO and Court of Federal Claims
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 Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC, B-423332, April 29, 2025​, Davenergy-VCI protested the cancellation by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) of a solicitation for architectural engineering construction management services for medical facility construction projects required by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in Oregon and Washington. Davenergy had already been advised by the Corps that it was found to be the most highly qualified offeror when the agency unexpectedly pulled the plug.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In FI Consulting, Inc., B-423274 (April 11, 2025​), FI Consulting, Inc. (FIC) protested its elimination from a procurement for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program support services after the agency rejected its proposal for including a company logo (a picture containing text) on its cover page—an act the agency deemed noncompliant with explicit formatting instructions in the solicitation.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

The Mission Essential Group, LLC (MEG) protested the scope of corrective action by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) following a previous protest involving a linguist support services procurement. In The Mission Essential Group, LLC, B-421745.4 (April 2, 2025​), MEG claimed that the agency’s approach, which allowed only limited proposal revisions tailored to specific evaluation notices (ENs), was improperly restrictive and unfairly benefited the awardee, Worldwide Language Resources, LLC (WWLR).

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 Perimeter Security Partners, LLC, B-422666.4 (March 11, 2025), Perimeter Security Partners (PSP) protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a task order to Low Voltage Wiring  (LVW) for maintenance services at Army access control points.  The Army rejected PSP’s technically stronger, lower-priced quote, rating it unacceptable due to two alleged deficiencies tied to exceeding a 15-page limit. PSP argued that the solicitation was ambiguous about whether certain charts—like an organizational chart and a response time chart—were excluded from the page count.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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​.

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 ›