Posted

Second Bite Denied: COFC Applies Blue & Gold and Upholds $130 Million DLA Reaward

by

In Advantaged Solutions, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-1806 (Jan. 30, 2026), Advantaged Solutions, Inc. (ASI) protested the Defense Logistics Agency’s decision to rescind an initial award to ASI and instead award a $130 million SAP enterprise resource planning (ERP) services contract to Oakland Consulting Group. The procurement involved software upgrades to DLA’s ERP platform. After initially finding Oakland technically unacceptable and awarding to ASI, DLA discovered that evaluators had treated identical proposal language differently in assessing the offerors’ Hybrid Agile methodology. DLA issued a stop-work order, reevaluated the proposals, found both technically acceptable and awarded to Oakland as the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror.

ASI challenged the corrective action, argued that the solicitation had been improperly descoped, contended that discussions were unequal, and asserted that the final award decision lacked a rational basis. The Court of Federal Claims rejected each argument, providing a useful primer on Blue & Gold waiver, unequal discussions, corrective action and prejudice.

The Decision
The COFC denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. Blue & Gold Barred the Descoping Challenge: ASI argued that DLA’s amendments improperly reduced the scope of the solicitation and that the final procurement no longer reflected the agency’s minimum needs. The Court held that this argument was waived under Blue & Gold because ASI did not protest the amendments before the close of bidding. The descoping occurred through a solicitation amendment well before final proposal submission, and ASI submitted its proposal without objection.The Court rejected ASI’s attempts to avoid waiver. Filing an agency-level protest after award was too late. The agency’s decision to take corrective action did not restart the Blue & Gold clock. Nor could ASI avoid waiver by reframing its challenge as an evaluation issue rather than a solicitation defect. As the Court emphasized, having waited, ASI could not “restart the bidding process and get a second bite at the apple.”
  2. No Unequal Discussions Where No Deficiency Was Assigned: ASI argued that DLA conducted unequal discussions because Oakland was given multiple opportunities to address a Hybrid Agile methodology issue while ASI was not. The Court rejected this argument because ASI’s proposal had consistently been rated technically acceptable. Although internal DLA emails colloquially referred to a “deficiency” or “deficiency language” found in ASI’s proposal, the official evaluations never assigned ASI a deficiency. The Court noted the peculiarity of ASI’s position—it was effectively arguing that its own proposal should have been deemed deficient. In any event, because discussions are required only to address deficiencies or significant weaknesses, and none were assigned to ASI, there was no obligation to reopen discussions with ASI.
  3. DLA’s Reevaluation and Award Decision Had a Rational Basis: The Court found that DLA reasonably corrected its evaluation error. The record showed that evaluators had treated identical proposal language differently, leading to inconsistent technical ratings. Once the agency identified the inconsistency, it issued a stop-work order, reevaluated both proposals using a consistent standard, and concluded that both were technically acceptable. Because Oakland’s price was approximately $4 million lower, DLA awarded to Oakland. The Court concluded that the agency adequately explained how the error occurred and why corrective action was appropriate. Ultimately, this case stands for the common sense proposition that agencies are permitted to correct their own evaluation mistakes, and Court found that the record supported the reasonableness of the agency’s final decision.
  4. ASI Could Not Demonstrate Prejudice: Even assuming error, ASI could not establish prejudice. Because ASI and Oakland submitted identical language in the disputed technical section, their proposals rose and fell together. If Oakland’s language was acceptable, ASI properly lost on price. If Oakland’s language was deficient, ASI’s identical language would have rendered its own proposal deficient as well. Without a substantial chance of award but for the alleged error, ASI’s protest ultimately failed.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Blue & Gold Is Broad and Unforgiving: If an offeror believes a solicitation has been improperly modified or descoped, the challenge must be raised before the close of bidding. The Court also reaffirmed that that corrective action does not revive waived arguments, and also that reframing the issue will not avoid waiver.
  2. Corrective Action Does Not Reset the Solicitation: An agency’s decision to rescind and reevaluate an award does not reopen previously available solicitation challenges.
  3. Discussions Are Required Only for Deficiencies: Agencies are not obligated to conduct discussions where a proposal has not been assigned a deficiency or significant weakness. This is true even if internal agency emails refer to “deficient” language in an offeror’s proposal.
  4. Identical Language Can Undermine Prejudice: Where competing proposals contain identical language, a protester may struggle to demonstrate prejudice, particularly in a lowest-priced technically acceptable procurement.
  5. Agencies May Correct Their Own Evaluation Errors: When an agency discovers inconsistent treatment of identical proposals, it may rescind an award and correct the error without running afoul of the APA, so long as it provides a rational explanation.