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

by

In AIX Tech, LLC, B-423417, et al., June 11, 2025, AIX Tech protested the award by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) of a task order to Defense Solutions Group (DSG) for strategic advisory support services, challenging the evaluation of DSG’s proposal, the best-value tradeoff decision, and alleging an undisclosed conflict of interest (OCI) tied to a personal relationship between an agency employee and the chief executive officer of DSG’s joint venture partner. GAO dismissed most of the protest as legally insufficient and denied the remainder after finding no evidence of impropriety.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Red River Science & Technology, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2035C (June 18, 2025), Red River challenged multiple aspects of an Army procurement under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) Program, including the reopening of discussions, allowing a previously disqualified offeror (Vanquish) back into the competition, issuing a midstream amendment, and the treatment of discussions and debriefings. The Court upheld the Army’s conduct, even where it acknowledged procedural quirks, based on the agency’s ultimate aim to ensure the government obtained the best value.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In KL3, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2028 (June 2, 2025, reissued June 12, 2025), KL3 challenged the Department of Defense’s award of two sole-source contracts under the SBA’s 8(a) program, arguing that the agency improperly circumvented small business rules by breaking up and reclassifying work previously solicited under the ENCORE III procurement. KL3 contended that the awards to an 8(a) firm violated 13 C.F.R. § 124.504(a), which bars procuring agencies from shifting previously set-aside small business work into the 8(a) program. Despite the legal nuance, KL3’s protest was dismissed for lack of standing and failure to prove prejudice.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Innovative Management & Technology Approaches, Inc., B-423190, et al., Mar. 3, 2025, IMTAS protested its exclusion from a competition run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after the agency rejected its proposal based on a $0.01 discrepancy in one labor rate listed on its pricing template. The error—a clear scrivener’s mistake—did not impact the actual quoted labor rate or total evaluated price. IMTAS argued that the agency should have either ignored or clarified the harmless typo. GAO agreed the exclusion was unreasonable—but ultimately denied the protest because IMTAS failed to demonstrate prejudice. The case also touched on the limits of the “too close at hand” doctrine in past performance and technical evaluations.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Kako’o Spectrum Healthcare Solutions, LLC, B-421127.5, et al., May 28, 2025, Kako’o Spectrum Healthcare Solutions (KSHS) protested the U.S. Marine Corps’ award to Cognito Systems, arguing that Cognito’s proposal exceeded the page limit and that the agency unreasonably failed to assign additional strengths to KSHS’s own proposal. KSHS claimed that if the agency had enforced the page limit and evaluated both proposals fairly, it would have won.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc., B-423433, May 20, 2025, A2A Integrated Logistics protested a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contract award after learning that its proposal had been rejected due to a technical issue—specifically, the agency’s email server allegedly blocked the submission. A2A maintained that its proposal was timely submitted and should have been considered. However, despite discovering the issue shortly after the submission deadline, A2A waited more than 10 days before filing a formal protest with the agency. After the agency dismissed that protest as untimely, A2A turned to GAO. But GAO likewise dismissed the protest, holding that A2A missed the strict filing deadline and emphasizing that informal communication with the agency does not extend the protest clock.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Lockheed Martin Corporation, B-423294, May 2, 2025, Lockheed Martin protested the Air Force’s handling of potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) in a procurement for Tactical Operations Center – Light prototype systems. Lockheed alleged that Science Applications International Corp., a competitor, had unmitigated OCIs due to its work as a software integrator on a separate Air Force program and its role in a software consortium. Lockheed also challenged the adequacy of the solicitation and a last-minute OCI waiver issued by the agency.

Continue reading ›

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 ›