Tracking the latest developments at the GAO and Court of Federal Claims
Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

GAOvsUSCoFC_logos-300x169When 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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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​.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

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.

Continue reading ›