The Bid Protest Debrief
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.
The Decision
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the protest, ruling that:
- Waiver of Discussion Argument: The Court ruled that WFS waived its right to challenge the Army’s lack of discussions because it did not raise the issue before bid submission. Under the Blue & Gold rule, solicitation challenges must be raised before the bid due date. The Court rejected the protester’s “inventive” attempt to characterize the deviation as a violation of the acquisition plan, rather than a direct challenge to the solicitation, labeling it a distinction without a difference.
- Technical & Small Business Evaluation Was Reasonable: The Army rationally assigned weaknesses to WFS’s proposal due to omissions, lack of clarity, internal inconsistencies and conflicting information. The Court found no basis to second-guess the Army’s discretionary evaluations.
- Cost Realism Analysis Was Proper: The Army adjusted WFS’s proposed costs after determining that WFS’s indirect cost rates were unsubstantiated due to a lack of historical data. The Court upheld the Army’s methodology, noting that agencies have broad discretion in conducting cost realism analyses.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
- Raise solicitation challenges early: If a solicitation deviates from DFARS § 215.306(c)(1)’s direction that agencies “should” conduct discussions in acquisitions with an estimated value of $100 million or more, contractors must protest before the bid due date—waiting until after an award can bar the claim.
- Be precise in proposal details: The Army assigned WFS weaknesses for ambiguities and inconsistencies in its technical and small business proposals. Clear, well-documented proposals can help avoid similar pitfalls.
- Cost realism adjustments are discretionary: Agencies have wide latitude to adjust proposed costs. If a bidder lacks historical rates or a clear justification, the agency may modify the proposed pricing.
RELATED ARTICLES