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

by

In CAN Softtech Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1009C, July 29, 2025, CAN Softtech Inc. (CSI) protested the General Services Administration’s decision to cancel its award for IT support services for the Air Force, alleging that the agency’s corrective action—terminating the award and re-soliciting the requirement—lacked a rational basis. The court partially agreed, finding that while the initial reevaluation decision was reasonable, the later cancellation and resolicitation were arbitrary and unsupported. This case offers a strong reminder that agencies cannot simply invoke vague “ambiguities” to justify wiping the slate clean.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

Emissary LLC, the incumbent contractor, protested the Department of Defense’s Washington Headquarters Services’ award of a contract to Gemini Industries for technical support services to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict. (See emissary LLC, B-422388.3, et al., July 29, 2025.) GAO sustained the protest, finding that the agency conducted a flawed technical evaluation, improperly credited past performance, and failed to evaluate the impact of an OCI mitigation plan that altered the awardee’s technical approach. This is a rare case where a protester prevailed on both evaluation and organizational conflict of interest (OCI) grounds, offering a roadmap for what can go wrong when agencies rush or overlook key details in an awardee’s proposal.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In TYD Services, B-423648, July 30, 2025, TYD Services, the incumbent contractor, protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to award a vehicle leasing contract in Qatar to a competitor, Rahman Group, Inc. TYD was excluded from award because its proposal was found technically unacceptable. TYD argued that its past performance as the incumbent should have sufficed, and that the agency should have either overlooked or clarified its missing proposal content. GAO disagreed, providing a harsh reminder that even incumbents must fully comply with all proposal instructions—no matter how minor they may seem.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Addx Corp., B-423633, July 23, 2025, Addx protested the Air Force’s issuance of a task order to KL3 LLC under the OASIS+ small business IDIQ contract. Addx challenged both the evaluation of its proposal and an alleged ambiguity in the solicitation, but GAO dismissed the protest as untimely, offering a clear reminder of two procedural pitfalls: (1) the risk of filing an agency-level protest instead of going straight to GAO, and (2) the requirement to raise patent ambiguities before the proposal deadline.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In Wright Brothers Aero, Inc., B-423326.2 (July 7, 2025),​ Wright Brothers Aero protested the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) reaffirmation of a contract award for aircraft refueling services to Premier Jet Services, arguing that the agency failed to reasonably implement corrective action and improperly evaluated proposals. But GAO dismissed the protest as untimely, finding that Wright Brothers waited too long after learning about DLA’s award decision.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In SMS Data Products Group, Inc., B-423341, et al. (May 29, 2025​), SMS Data Products Group protested a task order award to Abacus Technology Corporation for intranet control support services. While the protest raised several price and evaluation challenges, the most significant issue was timeliness—specifically, when the debriefing ended and the protest clock began ticking. Although the agency gave SMS until February 14 to submit enhanced debriefing questions, the applicable regulation only allowed two business days from the February 11 initial debriefing, making the real deadline February 13. SMS followed the agency’s stated timeline, but GAO still held that the debriefing was closed as of February 11, when it was first issued, and evaluated the protest accordingly. Thankfully, SMS filed its protest early—out of an abundance of caution—and avoided a trap that could have resulted in its entire protest being dismissed as untimely.

Continue reading ›

Posted

by

In DirectViz Solutions, LLC, B-423366, et al. (June 11, 2025)​, DirectViz Solutions protested the Army’s issuance of a task order to Peraton for cybersecurity information technology support services for the Army’s Global Cyber Center (GCC). DirectViz alleged that Peraton’s simultaneous performance of a related task order supporting the Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER) created an impaired objectivity OCI—a conflict that Peraton failed to disclose, and that the agency failed to meaningfully investigate. GAO sustained the protest—a rare outcome in OCI cases—concluding that the Army’s OCI review was inadequate, and that Peraton’s overlapping roles posed a significant potential conflict.

Continue reading ›

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 ›