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

by

In Enviremedial Services, Inc., B-423552 (August 28, 2025), Enviremedial Services, Inc. (ESI) protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a facilities maintenance contract to BryMak & Associates, Inc., alleging flaws in the agency’s price evaluation, past performance analysis and best-value tradeoff. While GAO dismissed ESI’s unbalanced pricing claim, it sustained the protest based on multiple errors and omissions in the past performance evaluation and the agency’s failure to meaningfully document its source selection rationale.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In GovCIO, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Nos. 25-809 & 25-913 (August 18, 2025), in one of the first cases to test the impact of a Trump administration executive order (EO) on federal procurement, GovCIO and 22nd Century Technologies challenged the IRS’s sole-source bridge contract to Iron Mountain for scanning and digitizing incoming tax filings. The agency had bypassed competition, invoking an “urgent and compelling need” based on EO 14,247, which mandated digital payments and a shift away from paper-based systems by late 2025.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC, B-423267.2 (September 2, 2025), Advanced Computer Learning Company (ACLC), the incumbent contractor, protested the Navy’s award of a support services and data link training contract to Linchpin Solutions, Inc., challenging the agency’s evaluation of past performance and the resulting best-value tradeoff. ACLC argued that it was irrational for the Navy to assign Linchpin the same “Substantial Confidence” rating it received, despite ACLC’s strong performance as the incumbent on the exact requirement.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Competitive Innovations, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1773 (August 28, 2025), Competitive Innovations (CI) challenged the Transportation Security Administration’s decision to reject its revised proposal in a procurement for program management support services. TSA had disqualified CI for submitting a modification to its labor category mapping after the proposal deadline, and for relying on a GSA schedule modification that was not yet effective when its proposal was due. CI argued the agency’s actions were overly rigid and unfair, and that it should have been granted an extension. The Court disagreed, upholding the rejection and reiterating that when it comes to proposal deadlines in Federal procurements, late is late.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Protection Strategies Etc. International, LLC, B-423539 (Aug. 25, 2025), Protection Strategies, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), filed a pre-award protest challenging the terms of a solicitation issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) for background investigation support services. The protester objected to the agency’s decision to issue the solicitation as a general small business set-aside, rather than reserving it for SDVOSBs or another small business subcategory. It also raised concerns about the solicitation’s risk structure, particularly the use of a fixed-price contract model and the alleged lack of guaranteed funding for phase-in activities.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2023-1970 (Decided Aug. 28, 2025), Percipient.ai challenged a task order award by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), alleging that the government violated 10 U.S.C. § 3453—a statutory preference for commercial items—by failing to fairly consider its AI platform. But Percipient had not submitted a bid, teamed with a prime, or otherwise participated in the procurement process. The core legal question became: Can a company that never submitted a proposal still be an “interested party” with standing to protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)? A Federal Circuit panel initially said yes. The government appealed, and the court took the case up en banc, ultimately reversing course.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Advanced Technology Systems Company v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-515C (July 16, 2025), Advanced Technology Systems Company (ATSC) protested the Navy’s award of a contract for a nationwide maritime surveillance system in Egypt to Forward Slope, Inc. (FSI). ATSC argued that the Navy’s best value determination was flawed, that it used a vague and inconsistent past performance evaluation framework, and that the agency disregarded highly relevant subcontractor past performance. The Court agreed, finding that ATSC had established multiple procurement errors that were both irrational and prejudicial, even though injunctive relief was denied due to national security concerns.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

After the GAO indicated it would likely sustain Perimeter Security Partners’ protest challenging a task order award for access control point maintenance, the Army took corrective action—but only after filing its agency report and participating in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the cognizant GAO attorney.  Perimeter then requested reimbursement of its protest costs, arguing that its grounds were clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed in taking corrective action. The GAO agreed, finding that the agency should have acted earlier based on the protest record, and that all protest grounds were intertwined and not severable. (Perimeter Security Partners, LLC—Costs, B-422666.2, Aug. 8, 2025)

The Decision
The GAO granted the protester’s request for reimbursement of costs, ruling that:

  1. Protest Grounds Were Clearly Meritorious: GAO determined that at least two protest grounds—the disparate treatment in past performance evaluation and the flawed best-value tradeoff—were not just viable but likely to result in a sustain. GAO had advised the parties of this in an outcome prediction ADR session, and confirmed that the agency’s evaluation decisions were inconsistent with the record and evaluation criteria.
  2. Corrective Action Was Unduly Delayed: GAO emphasized that corrective action is only considered “prompt” if it’s taken before the agency report is due. Here, the Army waited until after ADR and multiple rounds of briefing. That delay unnecessarily increased protest costs, which GAO seeks to discourage.
  3. Agency’s Arguments Were Unpersuasive: The Army argued that because GAO did not promise cost reimbursement during ADR, it shouldn’t be required to pay. GAO rejected this, clarifying that cost entitlement flows from undue delay, not from ADR participation. The agency also failed to show that any protest grounds were clearly severable, so GAO awarded full cost reimbursement.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. You May Be Entitled to Protest Costs, but Only If the Protest Was Strong: GAO will only recommend cost reimbursement where protest grounds are clearly meritorious, meaning the agency had no defensible legal position and should have seen it early.
  2. Delay Can Cost the Government: If the agency waits until after briefing or ADR to take corrective action, even if it avoids a formal sustain, it may still have to pay the protester’s legal and consultant fees.
  3. All-or-Nothing Depends on Severability: Protesters can recover all costs if their successful claims are intertwined with the rest of the protest. If claims are clearly separate and weak, GAO may reduce or deny reimbursement for those portions.
  4. Participation in ADR Does Not Waive Cost Claims: An agency’s voluntary ADR participation does not shield it from protest cost liability. Protesters should not be discouraged from requesting costs just because ADR was used.
Posted

by

In Economic Systems, Inc., B-423747, et al. (Aug. 22, 2025), Economic Systems, Inc. (EconSys) protested the Department of the Interior’s decision to issue a sole-source purchase order to Government Retirements and Benefits, Inc. for a retirement benefits software platform. EconSys argued that it offered a platform with identical functionality and that the agency’s justification for limiting competition was both flawed and based on incorrect assumptions. The protest raised an important procedural issue: how and when a protester can challenge a sole-source announcement, particularly when the agency’s notice includes ambiguous or mixed messaging about vendor responses.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In SOFITC3, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2064C (August 21, 2025), incumbent contractor SOFITC3 challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) award of a cybersecurity contract to Delviom, arguing that the agency’s evaluation was flawed on several fronts. SOFITC3 claimed that Delviom had improperly combined two separate FEMA contracts into a single “engagement” in its corporate experience submission, in violation of the solicitation requirements. It also alleged that DHS evaluated the proposals unequally by assigning strengths to Delviom that were not equally credited to SOFITC3’s similar technical content. Lastly, SOFITC3 argued that Delviom’s staffing plan was noncompliant and that the awardee’s price should have been rejected as unrealistic. The Court rejected all of these arguments, finding the DHS evaluation to be reasonable, well-documented and consistent with the solicitation. Notably, the Court found that the term “engagement” was patently ambiguous, meaning SOFITC3’s failure to challenge it before submitting its proposal resulted in a waiver.

Continue reading ›