GovSpring 2025 Litigation Roundups

United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”)

Bowhead Enterprise, Science, and Technology, LLC v. United States, No. 24-2110C –  November 5, 2025

On November 8, 2024, the U.S. Army Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications, and Network (PEO C3N) awarded a contract to DNI Emerging Technologies, Inc. for SEPM support services. Bowhead Enterprise, Science, and Technology Inc. protested this award at the Court of Federal Claims, asserting a smattering of grounds relating to organizational conflicts of interest, adjectival ratings, and cost realism. On cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record, the Court of Federal Claims denied each of the protestor’s grounds and dismissed the protest.

Bowhead argued that DNI’s selection presented organizational conflicts of interest concerning DNI’s relationships with designated subcontractors that were also working on other contracts administered through PEO C3N. Bowhead alleged that DNI would be positioned to evaluate the work of these subcontractors and that the contracting officer failed to meet its obligations in evaluating these potential conflicts. The court noted that these arguments either amounted to accusations that the contracting officer had outright failed to consider these conflicts, reached a preordained conclusion in their evaluation, or failed to incorporate these OCI risks when evaluating DNI’s technical evaluation. In rejecting each argument, the court found that the contracting officer had conducted a thorough evaluation and held that Bowhead’s arguments amounted to nothing more than mere disagreement with the contracting officer.

Bowhead next argued that the contracting officer’s evaluation had been deficient in its assignment of adjectival ratings. Regarding Technical Factor 1 (Demonstration of Knowledge), Bowhead alleged that the Army improperly assigned DNI a strength by crediting it for discussing a capability sets and that, according to Bowhead, was beyond the scope of the solicitation. The court found Bowhead’s argument to be unsupported by the terms of the solicitation. Bowhead also argued that the Army failed to identify a deficiency that led to an “acceptable” rating. The court held that the Army was not required to hold discussions on this deficiency because it did not rise to the level of precluding award if uncorrected. Finally, the court dismissed Bowhead’s argument that its three strengths should have merited a “good” rating rather an “acceptable” rating on the grounds that the decision was supported by a finding Bowhead’s proposal still lacked the detail required of a “good” rating and that the protest ground amounted to mere disagreement.

Regarding Technical Factor 2 (Technical Readiness), Bowhead argued that DNI improperly received a “good” rating in spite of the Source Selection Evaluation Board stating DNI “the offeror fails to address their methodology to ensure rates are competitive and reasonable” as required by the solicitation. However, the Court found that the SSEB’s conclusion was immaterial in light of the SSA’s finding that DNI fully addressed these requirements.

Bowhead also raised two grounds concerning past performance. First, Bowhead asserted that its incumbency advantage was not duly considered, which the court rejected as no more than a naked claim that it has performed well and deserved “substantial confidence” rating. The court similarly declined to disturb the SSA’s determinations that DNI edged Bowhead in the past performance factor in spite of Bowhead’s incumbency status. Second, Bowhead’s argued that DNI was not deserving of a “satisfactory confidence” past performance rating because its only demonstrated past performance came from a proposed subcontractor. The solicitation allowed no more than two examples of past performance to come from proposed subcontractor and the only two examples that DNI submitted were from its proposed subcontractors. The court declined to read in a requirement that at least one example be the offeror’s own experience.

Bowhead’s final grounds concerned cost realism. Bowhead first argued that the Army failed to conduct its cost realism evaluation in line with the terms of the solicitation by focusing only on the direct labor categories that made up just a third of the total proposed contract spend. The Court here found that Bowhead’s argument possessed some merit, noting that DNI’s proposals included below-market salary proposals which the solicitation specifically identified as potentially unreasonable. But the Court found this misstep to be harmless error both because DNI’s below market proposals were only slightly below 50th percentile and because the solicitation’s stated remedy was an upward adjustment. Had this adjustment been implemented, Bowhead’s proposed price would have been 16 percent higher than DNI’s rather than 18 percent higher. Bowhead next argued that the Army had failed to consider these issues with DNI’s cost proposal while evaluating its technical approach. The court again rejected this basis, noting that doing so would have run afoul of the terms of the solicitation requiring those factors to be evaluated separately.

Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-cv-279 – October 31, 2025

This bid protest case concerned the Department of Veterans Affairs’s procurement of prasugrel, a blood thinner commonly used to reduce the risk of stroke or heart attack. This solicitation incorporated the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act restrictions enacted at FAR 25.4 and required that the “Government will consider for award only offers of U.S.-made or designated country end products unless the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that there are no offers for such products or that the offers for those products are insufficient to fulfill the requirements of this solicitation.”

Cosette Pharmaceuticals manufactures Effient, the name brand version of prasugrel, and holds a Federal Supply Schedule contract to provide that drug to the VA. Cosette manufactures Effient in Germany, allowing it to provide the drug as a “designated country end product” for the purposes of the Trade Agreements Act. None of the other five offerors under this solicitation offered to supply a TAA-compliant product. However, Cosette’s proposed price was, as the court described it, “markedly higher” than its competitors’ offers and “orders of magnitude higher” than both the Independent Government Cost Estimate or the price of procurement on the open market. The CO excluded Cosette from the competitive range on this basis, and the VA issued a Determination of Non-Availability, noting that Cosette was excluded from the competitive range because of the gap between its proposed price and those offered by its competitors but not specifically stating that Cosette’s price was unfair or unreasonable. Based on this determination that the only TAA-compliant offer was insufficient to fulfill the requirements of the solicitation, the VA awarded the contract to Golden State, which offered a product manufactured in India. Cosette protested this award at the Court of Federal Claims.

Here, the court then held that the VA’s establishment of the competitive range on the basis of a price comparison between a TAA-compliant offer and non-TAA compliant offers was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the clear language of the TAA shows that the act intends to exclude offers to provide products from countries that are not parties to the WTO GPA even when those offers would be substantially better deals for the Government. If agencies could simply get around the TAA’s requirements where doing so would get them a better deal, the court reasoned, the TAA’s “insufficiency” exception would consume the rule and the act would lack the teeth required to achieve its stated intent to induce WTO GPA accession. The Court further indicated that the text of the statute did not permit this type of exception even where the proposed price of a TAA-compliant product was “exorbitantly higher” than its non-TAA compliant competition. The court further applied this same reasoning to the Government’s attempt to recontextualize the same comparison, including the government’s arguments that it Cosette’s offer was eliminated on either price reasonableness or non-responsiveness grounds.

The upshot of this decision is clear: the terms of non-TAA compliant offers should have no bearing on whether a TAA-compliant offers is “insufficient” to meet the Government’s needs.

CS 321 East 2nd Investors, LLC v. United States, No. 25-cv-595 – October 2, 2025 

In a pre-award protest, CS 321 challenged the Federal Public Defender’s (“FPD’s”) Office for the Central District of California’s solicitation. The procurement is for office space through a General Services Administration (“GSA”) lease. CS 321 currently leases office space to FPD for one of FPD’s two locations. Those locations are consolidated under the new lease, providing for modernized accommodation. FPD required a minimum of over 57,000 square feet, but CS 321 only had under 50,000 available, so they were unable to bid.

GSA notified CS 321 that they could not meet the requirement, and CS 321 initially filed a protest at GAO. In that protest, CS 321 challenged the requirements of the lease as unreasonable and alleged the procurement violated the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technology  (“USE IT”) Act, which requires agencies to better utilize federally-leased office space by reducing unused and wasted space. GAO denied the protest, finding the requirements were reasonable and that the USE IT Act did not apply as it was enacted after the request for proposals. Further, GAO found that even if the Act were in existence at the time FPD issued the solicitation, it does not apply to judicial branch entities.

Following the denial at GAO, CS 321 protested at the Court of Federal Claims. In its new protest, CS 321 again cited the USE IT Act, stating it prohibited FPD from leasing space at more than 150 sq/f per person. CS 321 also argued the requirement was unduly restrictive, failing to accurately reflect FPD’s need for less space. The Government argued that CS 321 had no Article III or statutory standing. The Court found CS 321 had standing given the GSA had only advised CS 321 that their building would likely not meet the requirements. CS 321’s proposal contained a plan for extensive renovations correcting the deficiencies noted by GSA which the court held, even if unlikely, CS 321 could still be awarded the contract.

The Court denied CS 321’s statutory and regulatory arguments, finding the USE IT Act and related OMB memoranda were not procurement authorities. These laws provide a benchmark for agencies’ lease of space but do not govern the solicitation process. Even if these were procurement authorities, the Court further found that they were not applicable to FPD, a judicial branch entity. The involvement of GSA did not matter since GSA was not the actual tenant of the space being leased, as the statute sets out benchmarks for the tenant to follow, not GSA themselves.

CS 321’s argument that the requirements were unduly restrictive also failed. The record indicated that the requirement was reasonable and had a rational basis, as the consolidation of offices reduced the amount of overall space despite an increase in FPD staff. Therefore, the Court denied the protest, finding that CS 321 had standing, but the protest grounds presented were denied.

United Aero Group, LLC v. United States, No. 25-248 – September 29, 2025

Following their termination for convenience of a task order, United Aero Group (“UAG”) protested the modification of a contractor’s task order for maintenance on two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. When the agency terminated UAG’s task order, it transferred the work to another contractor’s order.  While protests of task orders at COFC are generally prohibited, UAG argued the transfer of work expanded the scope of the IDIQ, since it provided locations of facilities that differed from those in the IDIQ. Challenges to task awards are permitted if they are alleged to exceed the scope of the underlying IDIQ. UAG also alleged the agency failed to set aside the order to a small business, alleged it did not perform a “Rule of Two” analysis.

The Court denied jurisdiction, finding the task order did not exceed the scope of the IDIQ. The order fell within its scope, since the work was to occur in Central Florida and the IDIQ covered the region. COFC also denied the challenge to the agency’s failure to follow the “Rule of Two” argument, since the transfer of work to an existing order with another vendor does not trigger the obligation to conduct this analysis. COFC based its conclusion on the finding that the expansion of work under the task order did not rise to the level of a modification, since it did not add additional manpower or funds to the order.

Strata-G Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 25-805 – September 29, 2025

Protestor challenged a notice from the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) that they would likely not be selected for an award based on their receipt of a “some confidence” rating in phase one of a multi-phase IDIQ competition. Strata-G argued CBP’s procedures violated FAR 12.203. Protestor also argued that CBP evaluated its proposal differently than the solicitation’s terms required. In phase one, CBP evaluated offerors’ prior aircraft support experience and issued a confidence recommendation. The recommendation was “advisory” and not a basis to evaluate proposals, but CBP used the rating to advise offerors of their likelihood of award.  CBP advised Strata-G not to proceed to the next phase, stating they only had “some confidence” that Strata-G could successfully perform the requirements. Strata-G submitted their phase two proposal anyway and filed this suit the same day.

The Court found there was no standing, because CBP’s confidence recommendation was only advisory. Since CBP did not use the rating to exclude Strata-G from the competition, the protestor did not suffer an injury based on the agency’s use of this procedure; CBP’s advisory recommendation did not prevent Strata-G or any other low-confidence offeror from participating in phase two of the procurement. The Court also found protestor’s second argument—agency deviation from solicitation criteria—was unripe, since CBP had not yet made award at the time the suit was filed. The Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss based on these factors.

Red River Science & Technology, LLC v. United States, No. 24-2035—June 18, 2025

In a pre-award protest, Red River challenged the Army's decision to revoke its status as the apparent awardee for a contract under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise Program. This procurement was structured as a basic ordering agreement (BOA). The solicitation required offerors to provide evidence, such as historical costs and projections, to support their proposed indirect rates. If an offeror failed to do so, the Army would apply a rate based on historical data. The solicitation also stated that any objection to this term would render the offeror's proposal unacceptable. Initially, the Army named Red River as the apparent awardee. However, another offeror filed a protest, arguing that the Army should have conducted discussions as required by DFARS § 215.306. In response, the Army took corrective action and opened discussions with the offerors.

During this period, Red River requested the original source selection decision document from the Army. The Army denied the request, stating that it should have been made during the initial debriefing. Following discussions, the Army announced its intention to award the contract to a different offeror. However, this new awardee objected to a cap on its indirect rates and refused to sign the contract. Subsequently, the Army issued an amendment that prohibited self-imposed caps on indirect rates. Red River protested this amendment at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which denied the protest. Red River then filed a protest at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), challenging both the amendment and the adequacy of the discussions. Red River asked the Court to either direct the Army to award them the contract or to require further discussions before making an award.

The Court first addressed a jurisdictional question, clarifying that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act's (FASA) bar on bid protests of task orders does not apply. The Court explained that a BOA is not a contract or a task order in the sense contemplated by FASA, but rather a framework for future agreements. On the merits of the case, the Court rejected Red River's arguments: Red River contended that the Army should not have taken corrective action based on the initial protest because it was untimely. The Court found that an agency may take corrective action based on a meritorious, albeit untimely, protest. Red River argued that the offeror who initially refused to sign the contract due to the rate cap should have been excluded. The Court noted that discussions are intended to allow otherwise unacceptable proposals to be made acceptable, and that such proposals can be included in the competitive range. Red River claimed that the amendment prohibiting caps on indirect rates unfairly benefited only one other offeror. The Court determined that the amendment benefited two offerors and that Red River had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim. Finally, the Court affirmed the Army's refusal to provide the source selection document, as Red River had not requested it in a timely manner during the initial debriefing.

Professional Analysis, Inc. v. United States, No. 24-1897 – June 3, 2025

In 2023, the Navy issued a solicitation for logistics support, material handling support, and supply chain management via a fixed-price contract in a two-month phase-in period, a ten-month base period, and four twelve-month option periods. Protestor challenged the Navy’s award to awardee, CACI, alleging their proposal was unacceptable by missing specific requirements and that CACI’s assumption, reserving the right for price adjustments, were improper. The court granted the government’s motion for judgment, stating the solicitation’s inclusion to “please provide” a certification was not a requirement an offeror needed to satisfy. CACI was also found to satisfy the Navy’s requirements for an “Agreement with Terms” under the solicitation despite the protest and that reserving the right to request an adjustment in pricing is appropriate.

Hydraulics International, Inc., No. ​ 25-312 – June 4, 2025

At the Court of Federal Claims, the decisions for bid protests are based on the administrative record (“AR”) provided by the Agency. If additional documents are found, the plaintiff can move to supplement the AR if they can demonstrate that doing so is “necessary for effective judicial review.” Here, plaintiff moved to supplement the AR with a deposition of an Army contractor, but the Court denied the motion, finding that it was not necessary for a full understanding of the Agency’s decision making.

Telesto Group, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01784 – June 2, 2025

In Telesto Group, Inc., the court addressed two key matters: a procedural motion to add to the official case record and, more significantly, the core arguments of Telesto's bid protest against the U.S. Army's award of a production agreement under its Other Transaction Authority (OTA). The dispute centered on the Army's use of a production OTA, a flexible acquisition vehicle governed by 10 U.S.C. § 4022. This statute permits the Department of Defense (DoD) to use OTAs for prototype projects instead of traditional contracts, provided certain conditions are met. If these conditions are not satisfied, the agency must use a standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Telesto challenged the Army's decision on two main grounds: Statutory Non-Compliance: The Army allegedly failed to meet the requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1)(A), which mandates significant participation by nontraditional defense contractors in the project. Violation of Solicitation Terms: The Army purportedly did not adhere to the specific requirements laid out in its own Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON). A major hurdle in the case was establishing the court's authority to even hear the protest. The court's jurisdiction, granted by the Tucker Act, covers alleged legal violations "in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement." While it is settled that a follow-on production OTA qualifies as a "procurement," the legal standing of protests involving the initial prototype phase has been less certain. The court clarified its jurisdictional reach, reasoning that when an agency intends for a prototype project to lead to a follow-on production contract, the prototype phase itself becomes protestable. This linkage means that alleged statutory or regulatory violations during the prototype stage can be challenged in court, but this is contingent on the agency's plan to proceed with a subsequent procurement. Ultimately, the court's analysis suggests a critical requirement for future protesters: to establish the court's jurisdiction over a prototype OTA challenge, evidence must be presented demonstrating the agency's intent to award a follow-on production contract.

Kropp Holdings, Inc. v. United States, No. 24-2155 - May 28, 2025

An incumbent contractor under the DLA’s AIR Card program challenged the award to Associated Energy Group, LLC (AEG), alleging that DLA accepted AEG’s late proposal, treated offerors unequally, and credited AEG’s corporate experience to its walled-off subdivision who had no relevant experience with aviation refueling. The court found that DLA unlawfully accepted AEG’s late proposal, treated offerors unequally by rewarding AEG for elements of its proposal it acknowledged in Kropp’s but had caused Kropp to remove, and had wrongly credited AEG for the past performance and corporate experience of its subsidiary. Lastly, the court found DLA’s award arbitrary and capricious due to the flawed evaluation of offerors. Notably, the court sanctioned the government for using smaller than 12-point font in violation of FCFC 5.5(c)(2), despite requesting and receiving leave of court to file an additional ten pages beyond the 40-page limit in RCFC 5.4(b)(1). Finding that Kropp succeeded on the merits of its protest, the court permanently enjoined award to AEG, pending re-solicitation of the requirement.

DEE MONBO v. The United States, No. 24-cv-1179 - May 21, 2025

Plaintiff filed a bid protest to contest the agency’s choice to not consider its proposal for a solicitation for decoration services, arguing in part that the agency’s choice lacked any rational basis. The court ruled that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing because the alleged injury inflicted on the Plaintiff is not redressable due to Plaintiff’s debarment from federal contracting.

In 2023, the U.S. Navy debarred Plaintiff from contracts with the federal government until late 2026, which the Plaintiff acknowledged throughout the filings in this case. As Plaintiff is ineligible to receive any federal contract, a favorable decision in this case would not redress any alleged injury or grant Plaintiff their requested form of relief (e.g., awarding the contract to Plaintiff). Plaintiff’s debarment also renders Plaintiff ineligible to claim statutory standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) because they are not an interested party given they have no substantial chance of winning the contract.

Gemini Tech Services, LLC (“Gemini”) v. United States, No. 24-1494 - May 5, 2025

Protestor challenged the agency’s award of a task order. They alleged the agency opened discussions based on inaccurate information, resulting in a finding that all offerors were within the competitive range. Protestor also alleged improper discussions. FAR 15.306(c)(1) requires formation of a competitive range based on rating all proposals according to the evaluation factors, the agency’s determination did not support the competitive range determination. The agency prejudiced Gemini since they would have been next in line for award with the second-lowest proposed price. The court noted that the awardee was also determined to have no potential to become technically acceptable during pass/fail technical acceptability evaluation, yet was allowed into the competitive range and then determined to be among the most highly rated after discussions.

Loyal Source Gov’t Servs., LLC v. United States, No. ​ 24-1945 - Apr. 8, 2025

Loyal Source’s pre-award bid protest was denied, where protestor alleged there was an ambiguity in the solicitation and that the agency wrongly required protester to disclose wage and Health & Welfare (H&W) rates in contravention of commercial practice. In support of its ambiguity argument, protester argued approximately five different ambiguities in the solicitation requirements, all of which the court rejected as either within the agency’s discretion to include or simply not ambiguous. Lastly, the protestor successfully argued that a requirement to provide wage and H&W rates for categories was impermissible, since it deviated from standard commercial practice, as required under FAR 12.301 & 12.302. Of note in this discussion is the Court’s reminder that 12.301(a) only requires the inclusion of *clauses* consistent with commercial practice, not provisions. However, the Court found that the agency violated 12.302 by failing to obtain a waiver to tailor the solicitation to include the required disclosures. Nevertheless, the Court found that the protester failed to prove that it was prejudiced by these disclosures, since the harm it alleged would occur due to disclosure was too speculative.

Loyal Source Gov’t Servs., LLC v. United States, No. 24-1001 - Apr. 8, 2025

Loyal Source Government Services, LLC vs. The United States, 24-1001: Determined that the agency acted reasonably to mitigate any Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violations by switching the procurement to DHS from CBP. Protestor had also alleged that the Agency did not do enough to ensure there was no further bias against them, but the Court noted that bias is not a PIA violation. The Court also refused to supplement the record, as protester requested.

Government Accountability Office (“GAO”)

QA Engineering, LLC, B-423716; B-423716.2 – September 30, 2025

This bid protest concerns the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) procurement of a pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) to be used as a small arms storage facility in Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The solicitation required a prospective awardee to fabricate metal components off-site and before transporting and assembling on-site. This procurement was conducted on a lowest-price technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, and it required all proposals to receive a rating of “acceptable” on all three technical factors to be considered for award. Under the “management approach” factor, offerors were required to describe their “approach to providing and maintaining an effective Quality Control program for this project to meet contract requirements for onsite construction activities and offsite fabrication.”

QA Engineering, LCC (QA) was among the nine offerors for this solicitation, but its proposal was found not to be technically acceptable under the “management approach” factor because it did not discuss quality control during the off-site fabrication stage. In its protest, QA argued that USACE had applied an unstated evaluation criterion. GAO, however, determined that the agency’s determination was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, finding both that the record did reflect that QA had not described its offsite fabrication plans and that the terms of the solicitation unambiguously required offsite quality control. Accordingly, GAO denied the protest.

Fidelity Contract Flooring, LLC, B-423730 – September 30, 2025

This protest concerns the Department of Veterans Affairs’s (VA) award of service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside contract for flooring materials to VA-TRAK, LLC. This solicitation required that offerors “must qualify as a small business concern under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract and be listed as an SDVOSB participant in the SBA certification database as set forth in 13 [C.F.R. §] 128.”

Protestor Fidelity Contract Flooring, LLC argued that VA-TRAK was ineligible for award because it had not specifically listed the relevant NAICS code in its SAM profile. Fidelity did not argue, though, that VA-TRAK did not meet the size standard corresponding to that NAICS code or that it was not listed as an SDVOSB participant on SAM. Here, GAO dismissed this protest, specifically finding that neither the solicitation nor the VAAR require that an offeror list a specific NAICS code on its SAM profile at the time it submits a quotation or receives an award.

Roku Management Consulting, LLC, B-423683 – July 29, 2025

Roku Management Consulting, LLC (RMC) protested the Navy's exclusion of its proposal under an RFP for financial management support services. ​ RMC argued the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was based on unstated evaluation criteria, claiming the solicitation did not require offerors to disclose contract dollar values on past work or meet a $10 million size benchmark. ​ However, the solicitation explicitly required offerors to demonstrate organizational experience with contracts exceeding $10 million in value and to detail their experience. ​GAO dismissed the protest, asserting that it was based on factually inaccurate assertions regarding the solicitation's requirements. ​ The protest failed to meet the threshold for providing a sufficient basis for consideration. ​ Additionally, RMC's challenge to other solicitation requirements was deemed untimely.

BioneX, LLC, B-423630 – July 25, 2025

This is another case that demonstrates the perils of utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) to generate pleadings without sufficient checks.  BioneX, LLC, a HUBZone small business, protested the award to BFrench Consulting, LLC by the Department of the Air Force for services at Aviano Air Base, Italy. BioneX alleged the agency failed to apply a HUBZone price evaluation preference under FAR clause 52.219-4 to its quotation. ​ However, the solicitation did not include this clause. Despite this, the BioneX argued that the clause should apply “by default,” but as the Air Force noted, it does not apply to overseas procurements. ​ GAO dismissed on that basis and also noted that BioneX relied on nonexistent or irrelevant case law, indicating the use of AI to generate pleadings. ​ The protest was dismissed as untimely and legally insufficient. ​

Addx Corporation, B-423633 – July 23, 2025

Addx Corporation, a small business, protested the issuance of a task order by the Air Force for IT architecture and engineering support.  Addx challenged the evaluation of its proposal and alleged ambiguous solicitation terms.  GAO dismissed both protest bases as untimely.  Regarding the challenges to the evaluation and source selection decision, Addx filed an agency-level protest on June 2, which was beyond the 10-day deadline set by FAR after receiving the basis of its protest in the May 16 debriefing. ​ GAO determined that the May 16 debriefing provided sufficient information for Addx to know its protest basis, making its agency-level protest untimely. ​ Regarding an assertion that the solicitation included contradictory instructions, Addx but did not raise this issue before the proposal submission deadline, as required for patent ambiguities. ​ Filing this challenge after award rendered it untimely. ​

Quantum Ventura, Inc., B-423603 – July 23, 2025

Quantum Ventura, Inc. (QV) protested the rejection of its Phase I proposal under the Department of Defense's Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program.  The requirement was for R&D related to down range crosswind sensing technologies on behalf of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The solicitation required offerors to submit “fully loaded” labor rates—that is labor rates that also reflect indirect costs.  Protestor argued the solicitation should have requested separate itemization of indirect costs and that the agency did not define “fully loaded.”  Upon rejection of its offer, the protester alleged that it was not aware that a separate itemization of indirect costs was not permitted.  GAO noted that, when read as a whole, the solicitation was unambiguous; this is because it lacked columns for indirect costs and also directed offerors to submit fully loaded labor rates.  Since the protester failed to accurately represent costs associated with labor, its proposal was deemed non-responsive, as it failed to meet a required 40% work share.  GAO dismissed the protest as untimely, stating that any alleged defects in the solicitation or cost template were apparent before the proposal submission deadline. ​ GAO emphasized that protests based on solicitation improprieties must be filed before the closing date for proposals, and QV failed to do so. ​ Additionally, GAO found that QV's interpretation of the solicitation was unreasonable and that its proposal was non-compliant even under its own interpretation. ​

Granite Telecommunications, LLC, B-423102.3 – July 21, 2025

After two corrective actions in response to protests by Granite Telecommunications, LLC (Granite), Granite again protested the VA’s award of a task order to Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation LLC (MetTel) for POTS replacement services, arguing that MetTel's low price reflected a lack of understanding of requirements, the VA failed to assess strengths in Granite's proposal, and the award was improperly made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis instead of a best-value tradeoff. ​ GAO dismissed Granite’s argument that the awardee’s price was too low, noting that an amendment to the RFP reflected that the agency would not conduct a price realism analysis.  GAO also noted that the Agency did not err by refusing to give Granite a higher technical evaluation for being an OEM of the requirement rather than a reseller, finding the VA's evaluation and source selection process reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. ​ Ultimately, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part, and MetTel's award was upheld.

FS Federal, LLC, B-423450.2 – July 17, 2025

FS Federal, LLC protested the Army's award of a contract for communication planning and support services to Vistra Communications, LLC. FS Federal argued that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal as “unacceptable” under the technical capability factor and subfactors. ​ The Army used a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) methodology to evaluate proposals, requiring offerors to explain in detail how they would meet the solicitation's requirements. ​The Army found FS Federal's proposal lacking in detail for several key sections of the Performance Work Statement, including communication research, product development, website management, and exhibit management. ​ GAO found FS Federal's proposal included broad, general statements of capabilities without providing sufficient detail plans demonstrating its ability to meet the requirements. ​ GAO stated that FS Federal simply restated requirements and asserted generally that it could meet them.  This fell short of the requirements in the solicitation.  GAO denied FS Federal's protest, affirming the Army's decision to award the contract to Vistra Communications, whose proposal was technically acceptable and offered the lowest price. ​

OReady, LLC, B-422910.2 – June 18, 2025

Protester challenged the exclusion of its quotation from consideration of a Linux system support services contract. GAO found the Agency’s action was supported by the terms of the solicitation, which required that a Quality Control Plan be submitted along with the proposal, which protester did not do. Protester also challenged the Agency’s decision since they did not seek clarifications or hold discussions. GAO also denied this basis of the protest, since the Agency has no such obligation.

Sancorp Consulting, LLC, B-422985.4, B-422985.5 – June 11, 2025

Protester challenged the issuance of call orders for technical support services, arguing flaws in the evaluation of its and competitors' quotations. ​ GAO found the Agency’s evaluation reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, including the assessment of a weakness in protester’s technical approach. ​ For one call order, GAO dismissed the protest as protester’s quotation was technically unacceptable due to the unavailability of proposed key personnel, which protester failed to disclose.

Compotech, Inc., B-423368 – June 12, 2025

To be an interested party, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder and its direct economic interests would be affected by the award or failure to award a contract. When a protester is capable of meeting a solicitation requirement that it alleges is unduly restrictive but simply fails to do so, it is not an interested party. In this case, Compotech alleged that a requirement for two unique signatures was immaterial (and therefore not mandatory) and was unduly restrictive. However, it could meet the signature requirement, but failed to obtain signatures in a timely manner. GAO dismissed, finding that the signature was material and that the protester was not an interested party.

SOS International, LLC, B-423366.2 – June 11, 2025

SOS International, LLC (SOSI) protested the Army's award of a task order to Peraton, Inc., arguing that the agency unreasonably evaluated its oral presentation, inadequately documented the evaluation, and improperly excluded its proposal from the best-value tradeoff. ​ Protester also challenged the evaluation of its betterment proposal and the awardee's organizational conflict of interest (OCI). ​ GAO denied the protest, finding the agency's evaluation reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and sufficiently documented under FAR subpart 16.5. ​SOSI's "some confidence" rating for its oral presentation made its proposal ineligible for award, and it was not an interested party to challenge Peraton's evaluation, as another offeror was next in line for award. ​

Automated Precision, Inc., B-422063.2 – June 18, 2025

Automated Precision, Inc. (API) protested the Navy's award of a contract to Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence, Inc., asserting its proposal was improperly rejected for failing to meet solicitation requirements, including the Buy American certificate and a humidity specification. ​GAO denied the protest, finding API's proposal technically unacceptable and noncompliant with material requirements, and dismissed further challenges as API was not an interested party eligible for award. GAO found the Navy's evaluation and award to Hexagon reasonable. ​

DirectViz Solutions, LLC, B-423366, B-423366.3, B-423366.4 – June 11, 2025

DirectViz Solutions, LLC protested the Army's award of a task order to Peraton, Inc. for cybersecurity IT support services for the Army’s Global Cyber Center (GCC), citing concerns over unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) and alleged flaws in the agency’s evaluation process. DirectViz argued that Peraton’s concurrent performance under a separate ARCYBER task order created an impaired objectivity OCI, which the Army failed to adequately investigate. ​While GAO found the agency’s OCI analysis unreasonable and sustained the protest on this basis, it rejected DirectViz’s other claims regarding the evaluation of proposals, oral presentation documentation, and cost realism analysis, finding them consistent with the solicitation and applicable regulations. ​GAO recommended the Army reevaluate Peraton’s OCI and take corrective action, as DirectViz was prejudiced as the next-in-line offeror.

AIX Tech, LLC, B-423417; B-423417.2; B-423417.3 – June 11, 2025

The Department of Defense’s Defense Informations Systems Agency (“DISA”) issued an RFP to small business holders of DISA’s ENCORE III MAC IDIQ for a fixed-price strategic advisory services contract, evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis with technical factors prioritized over price. AIX Tech protested the award to Defense Solutions Group (DSG), arguing the agency misevaluated DSG’s low-priced proposal and failed to address a conflict of interest involving DSG’s joint venture partner and a DISA contracting officer. GAO dismissed the evaluation and tradeoff challenges as speculative and unsupported, noting DISA was not required to conduct a price realism analysis. GAO also denied the conflict-of-interest claim, finding DISA reasonably investigated the matter. They also confirmed that the employee in question was not involved in the procurement and had no access to any procurement documents.

Quantech Services, Inc., B-422624.10 – June 5, 2025

The Department of the Army issued an RFP for base operations support services at Fort Polk, evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis. Vectrus Systems Corporation protested the award to Amentum Services, Inc., alleging that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate technical proposals and improperly accepted Amentum’s lower-priced offer despite its allegedly inferior technical approach. GAO denied the protest, finding the Army reasonably evaluated both proposals in accordance with the solicitation’s criteria and adequately documented its tradeoff decision. GAO emphasized that agencies have broad discretion in source selection and that disagreement with evaluation judgments, without more, is insufficient to sustain a protest.

Revolve Solutions LLC, B-423450 – June 3, 2025

The Army issued an RFP for fixed-price communication planning and support services, evaluated on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. Revolve Solutions, LLC protested the award to Vistra Communications, who had the lowest evaluated price, arguing the Army unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal as unacceptable. GAO denied the protest, finding Revolve’s proposal lacked sufficient detail under multiple PWS sections, including daily news reporting, breaking news alerts, media analysis, outreach event execution, and the development of up to 60 annual communication plans. GAO concluded the Army’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s requirements, as the protestor failed to specifically discuss in its proposal how it would tailor or modify its general standard practices to support the Army’s needs.

SMS Data Products Group, Inc., B-423341, B-423341.2, B-423341.3 – May 29, 2025

GSA issued an RFQ for fixed-price security system upgrades at a federal courthouse, evaluated on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. The RFQ required vendors to submit a quote demonstrating compliance with specified technical requirements, including evidence that their proposed video management software (VMS) met Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) standards. Radius Systems, LLC protested the award to Pace Systems after its quote was deemed technically unacceptable for failing to include required documentation. Radius argued that its product was FICAM-approved and that GSA should have inferred compliance. GAO denied the protest, holding that vendors bear the responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate technical acceptability. Because Radius failed to submit verification—such as a screenshot, letter, or data sheet—showing its VMS was on the FICAM Approved Products List, GAO concluded that GSA reasonably rejected the proposal in accordance with the solicitation’s requirements.

SysCom Inc., B-423334 – May 19, 2025

On September 20, 2024, the Air Force issued a solicitation as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, contemplating a fixed-price contract for support services across multiple Air Force locations, evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis regarding three evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Eleven offerors submitted proposals, but SysCom, the protestor, had their proposal deemed unacceptable based on the staffing plan and mission essential services subfactors under the umbrella technical evaluation factor, eliminating it from content. SysCom subsequently filed a protest with GAO, claiming it unreasonably deemed the above subfactors unacceptable and unreasonably failed to evaluate their price and past performance proposals. GAO denied SysCom’s protest, stating that because the agency properly deemed them ineligible for award, they were not an interested party and had no standing to pursue its challenge before GAO.

Sanitz Enterprises, Inc., B-423374 – May 30, 2025

GSA published an RFQ of a single firm-fixed-price delivery order for steel spill containment berms for Joint Base Lewis-McChord, evaluating offers via an LPTA basis. Among other requirements, GSA requested offerors state whether their product was the brand name listed in the solicitation, or that their product satisfied the requirements in the solicitation. Protestor filed a protest, alleging GSA misevaluated their offer as their product possessed the technical aspects outlined in the solicitation. GAO denied the protest, stating that GSA and the customer of the procurement could not determine with certainty whether protestor’s product satisfied the technical requirements.

Catalyst Solutions, Inc., B-423269.2 – May 28, 2025

The United States Marine Corps (“USMC”) issued an RFP for program management support services under a fixed-price task order, evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis. The RFP specified technical, past performance, and price as evaluation factors, with technical as the most important. Catalyst Solutions, an SDVOSB located in Virginia, protested the scope of USMC’s corrective action after they filed a protest, alleging USMC’s inclusion of a price realism evaluation as improper given that a price realism analysis not originally in the solicitation or protested. GAO denied the protest, finding USMC acted within its discretion to amend the solicitation and reasonably sought to address risks posed by unrealistically low pricing to ensure fair and impartial competition.

CueBid Techs., Inc. d/b/a CueBid BioDefense, B-423161.7 - June 4, 2025

Protester challenged Army’s cancellation of a solicitation for equipment washdown services. Protester also challenged the establishment of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) and issuance of a call order for sanitation services to Titan Associates Group. GAO determined the challenge to the cancellation of the solicitation was untimely, since it was filed after ten days of when the protester knew or should have known the basis of the protest; the claim that the call was outside the scope of the BPA was also dismissed for containing a “material factual error” because the Army amended the BPA to include the relevant location. GAO also dismissed this basis on standing grounds, since CueBid was not a holder of the BPA and therefore was not an interested party. GAO also stated that a separate challenge to the CICA stay was not for its consideration.

Innovative Management & Technology Approaches, Inc., B-422132.2 – March 3, 2025

Protester challenged the agency’s price, technical, and past performance evaluations. Regarding price evaluation, protester the agency wrongly rated protester’s proposal incomplete due to a minor typographical error in protester’s fully burdened labor rate, despite the “quoted price” showing the correct rate. Since the quoted price was to be evaluated, the error did not constitute a material omission meriting removal from the best value trade-off. GAO noted the solicitation did not require but instead permitted the agency to determine an offeror’s proposal to be ineligible for award due to failure to include required information. Notably, the agency did not allege that it could not evaluate protester’s price quote, which they found reasonable. GAO agreed that the Agency unreasonably determined the protester’s pricing was incomplete but protester failed to show it was competitively prejudiced by this error.

NexGen Data Sys., Inc., B-423209.2, B-423209.3 – May 29, 2025

Protester challenged the Navy’s issuance of a task order for IT support services to Modus21, LLC. On the evaluations for capability and staffing plan, both parties received an outstanding, but Modus21 received a higher rating for technical understanding compared to NexGen. Protester challenged awardee’s technical capability as well as the Navy’s evaluation of Protester’s technical understanding. GAO concluded that Protester failed to show competitive prejudice, since they did not demonstrate that they would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award.

Taylor Made Transportation Services, Inc., B-423117.3 – May 28, 2025

Following the award to Taylor Made, another offeror protested twice—the second time after reevaluation that favored Taylor Made. During the second protest, the VA took corrective action and terminated the contract award to Taylor Made for convenience. While GAO does not generally review terminations, it may do so when the decision to terminate “flows from a defect the contracting agency perceived in the award process.” The Agency’s decision to terminate was due to the protester being found technically unacceptable for failing to demonstrate relevant proof of experience within the five year time period required by the solicitation. GAO denied the protest, finding that the Agency’s actions were reasonable in light of the stated requirement.

Kako’o Spectrum Healthcare Solutions, LLC, B-421127.5, B-421127.6 - May 28, 2025

On a procurement for personal trainers for the Marine Corps’ sports medicine program, protestor challenged the best value determination, alleging that they unreasonably evaluated proposals by waiving page limits for awardee’s proposal, failing to adequately document parts of proposals that met requirements (only documenting failures and exceeded requirements), and not assigning additional strengths to protestor’s proposal. GAO dismissed all bases, stating that the agency does not need to document every met requirement, nor was the protestor prejudiced by the waiver of page limits. On the last point, protestor did not show “it would have altered its proposal to its competitive advantage had it been given the opportunity to respond to the altered requirements by adding five extra pages to its proposal because it chose to submit a proposal that was already 20 pages under the limit.”

Scott Investigations and Research, LLC, B-423342 - May 27, 2025

Protester submitted a proposal to the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) for an IDIQ small business set-aside contract to provide emergency water pouches that would be evaluated based on specific qualities (e.g., color, texture) and requirements (e.g., center spout). Despite DLA opening discussions and providing the protestor with an opportunity to revise their proposal, DLA rejected protestor’s proposal as technically unacceptable, leading the protestor to file a protest based on a restrictive solicitation and failing to engage in meaningful discussions. GAO denied the protest, stating the protestor failed to timely raise the issues on the solicitation and that DLA properly conducted discussions with the protestor by informing them of the deficiencies with the proposal and an opportunity to correct.

A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc., B-423433 - May 20, 2025

Protestor, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, protested the agency’s award of a contract based on their belief its quote was the “best value” for the agency and that its quote was improperly rejected by the agency. GAO dismissed the protest because the protestor failed to file its agency-level protest within 10-days after the protestor learned of both the agency’s award of the contract and the technical issue that prohibited them from submitting a timely proposal.

Digital Force Technologies, Inc., B-423319, May 19, 2025

On a protest of an award to Clear Align, LLC for a tactical security system, Digital Force alleged that the awardee’s solution—and Agency’s requirement—was not adequately derived from a Phase II SBIR, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 638(e)(4)(C). Protester also alleged that awardee was not a successor-in-interest to the original SBIR awardee. GAO found the award proper, asserting that the test was not whether the “requirements incorporate original concepts, findings, ideas, or research results that were generated in prior SBIR phase[s].” The proper test is whether the “proposed solution derives from, extends, or completes efforts” under a prior phase. GAO found that the security system was derived from efforts of the Phase II SBIR in a manner consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 638(e)(4)(C). Lastly, awardee was a proper successor-in-interest to the contractor of the Phase II SBIR due to an asset purchase agreement. GAO dismissed the protest.

ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., B-421560.14, B-412560.16 - May 8, 2025

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) issued an RFQ for information technology professional services on a best-value tradeoff basis. Offerors were evaluated in three stages. Protestor submitted a quotation but was not selected for award based on low confidence ratings on multiple aspects of their proposal (e.g., no demonstration of a prototype, poor staffing approach). Protestor alleged that the solicitation did not reflect the agency’s requirements and that the FBI improperly assigned ratings of “some confidence” to the protestor’s quote. GAO dismissed the protest because the protestor failed to identify a material departure from the assumptions stated in the solicitation. On the evaluation challenges, GAO found that the protestor did not provide a sufficient basis to demonstrate the agency acted improperly.

K&K JL Services, Inc. (“K&K”), B-423367 - May 7, 2025

Protestor challenged the terms and conditions of the request for proposal (“RFP”) for a single-source, fixed-priced Air Force contract for ground maintenance. K&K argued that the agency’s past performance evaluation (“PPE”) factor was restrictive of competition because it unfairly excluded small businesses. That factor required past business at a minimum value of $1 million a year.

GAO found that the PPE was reasonably related to the agency’s needs and that K&K did not prove competitive prejudice, since it could meet the PPE requirement. K&K’s protest was also meritless since, under the solicitation, failure to satisfy the PPE requirement did not make the contractor ineligible for award.

Perimeter Solutions LP, B-423321, B-423321.2 - May 6, 2025

Protestor alleged that Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service wrongly awarded a sole-source award for an aerial long-term fire retardant. The Agency’s justification was based on the fact that the protestor’s product did not pass galvanic corrosion testing. For that reason, the protestor was not an interested party, since they were not eligible to receive an award. Protest dismissed.

Open SAN Consulting, LLC–dba OSC Edge, B-423287, B-423287.2, April ​25, 2025

Protester challenged the Navy’s evaluation of offerors’ organizational experience and key personnel, in addition to challenging the reasonableness of the Navy’s best value tradeoff. The protestor took issue with the evaluation of organizational experience, key personnel qualifications, and the awardee’s relevance of references. Protester also argued that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and engaged in disparate treatment. Protester alleged that the Navy applied an unstated evaluation criterion by highlighting that its proposal lacked sufficient detail regarding the labor categories of the hired professionals and did not demonstrate experience hiring infrastructure or cybersecurity engineers. However, GAO noted that the solicitation “expressly required offerors to demonstrate experience hiring and retaining specific engineering positions relevant to the work to be performed.” The agency did not ding protester due to failure to include labor categories, but for its failure to provide sufficient information demonstrating hiring and retention experience required in the solicitation. Regarding key personnel qualifications, protestor did not list years of experience for personnel marked “senior,” as required by the solicitation. Regarding the relevance of references, the Agency had determined that a reference located in Kentucky was inadequate, since the work was to be onsite at Colorado Springs, and the reference was not able to speak to that requirement. In sum, GAO denied the protest, finding that the protestor did not demonstrate that the Agency acted unreasonably.

High Plains Computing, Inc.–d/b/a HPC Solutions–Reconsideration, B-422934.2 - April 10, 2025

Motion for reconsideration denied, since protestor failed to demonstrate that the prior decision contained errors of fact or law or presented new information not previously considered that would warrant reversal or modification of the decision.

Leadership and Performance Strategies, LLC–Reconsideration, B-421127.4 - April 7, 2025

GAO rejected protestor’s motion for reconsideration after a protest denial, alleging that GAO refused to acknowledge all of protestor’s legal arguments and cases in its protest. In its denial of the reconsideration, GAO notes that it is not required to address each of protestor’s arguments, which would not allow it to resolve protests expeditiously and efficiently.

NARCOPS Specialties, LLC, B-422886.2; B-422886.3 - March 28, 2025

NARCOPS, a small business contactor, protested the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) task order for support services for the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”). The protestor alleged the awardee provided an unrealistically low price for the contract, did not understand the contract’s requirements, and DHS did not properly document its analysis under the technical approach factor.

GAO denied the protestor’s first two protest grounds because there was no valid basis for the protest based on the agency’s record. GAO dismissed the remaining protest ground, finding DHS properly considered whether the awardee’s quote met technical requirements.

Auburn Manufacturing, Inc., B-423308, B-423308.2 - March 26, 2025

Auburn lodged a protest regarding the award of a contract for silica cloth, asserting that it could not meet the specifications due to the material not being domestically sourced. GAO denied the protest, clarifying that the Buy American Act (BAA) does not mandate domestically sourced items. Instead, BAA applies an evaluation factor to non-domestic offers, rendering them less competitive in comparison to domestic offers. The protestor exhibited a common misunderstanding of BAA compliance: assuming that it prohibits foreign end items rather than simply making offers containing them less competitive.

LunaTek, LLC, B-422882.3 - March 26, 2025

LunaTek’s protest of the scope of Agency corrective action denied. Following an initial protest by another competitor regarding insufficient price realism analysis, DLA amended the solicitation and conducted discussions. LunaTek protested this corrective action, stating DLA should have merely conducted a new realism analysis. GAO denied the protest, since DLA’s corrective action stated “the agency may take any other form of corrective action it deems appropriate.” Notably, DLA had made material changes to the requirements that called for an amendment to the solicitation, and LunaTek had not challenged those new requirements in its protest.

VMD Sys. Integrators, LLC dba VMD Corp., B-422384.3, B-422384.5 - March 25, 2025

The Agency had eliminated the protestor from the competition on the grounds that it had proposed labor categories from a special item number (SIN) included in its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract rather than the SIN specified in the RFQ. GAO sustained the protest, since the SIN used by the protestor met the Agency’s requirements and the solicitation didn’t restrict offerors to proposing services under a single SIN. GAO also sustained the protest on the secondary basis that the agency failed to address the protestor’s claims that a competitor didn’t quote a technical writer as mandated by the solicitation.

BTAS, Inc., B-422624.2, B-422624.6 – February 5, 2025

In January 2024, GSA issued a task order RFP to holders of GSA’s OASIS small-business IDIQ for advisory and assistance services, evaluated on a best-value tradeoff based on three factors: quality control plan, technical capability, and cost/price. After awarding the contract to another entity, BTAS filed a bid protest based on two grounds: (1) the agency’s improper cost realism evaluation; and (2) GSA’s failure to properly note the protestor’s strengths in its technical proposal. On the first ground, GAO found GSA’s cost realism evaluation was proper and were reasonably adequate and realistic based on the information available to GSA at the time of its evaluation (e.g., direct costs, escalation rate, indirect costs). GAO also held that BTAS failed to point out specific details on how its proposal met the requirements to receive a “strength” rating, and general disagreement is not sufficient to establish GSA’s unreasonableness.

Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”)

Williams Building Co. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8363 – November 3, 2025

This decision centered on one of several appeals by Williams Building Company (WBC) arising out of a contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs for work on a construction project at the Togus VA Medical Center in Augusta, Maine. Each of these appeals stem from WBC’s underlying allegation that the contract contained a number of latent defects. WBC initially requested that the VA terminate the contract for convenience; that request was denied, and the VA instead suspended work and required WBC to submit replacement drawings. WBC initially sought a $7.7m cost adjustment to account for the changes considered in those modified plans, and it later converted that request first to an REA and later to a certified claim. WBC’s appeal of the deemed denial of this monetary claim is ongoing as CBCA 8390.

This appeal, however, concerns a separately-filed claim for declaratory relief. Following WBC’s submission of its REA, the VA directed WBC to remobilize and, according to WBC’s allegations, to perform in accordance with the original terms of the contract. WBC submitted what it styled as a claim for declaratory relief requesting that the contracting officer issue a final decision stating that the VA had materially breached the contract and that WBC had the right to stop work. WBC then appeal the deemed denial of that claim. But after the contracting officer terminated the contract for default, the contractor acknowledged that its request for a declaratory judgment was moot, and it sought to withdraw that appeal without prejudice and without waiving its right to raise the same issues in its ongoing appeal of its termination for default, docketed as CBCA 8519. At issue here was whether a mooted appeal before the CBCA should instead be dismissed with prejudice.

Here, CBCA found that it lacked jurisdiction to continue to entertain the appeal, holding that the Constitution’s Article III “case or controversy” requirement applies in matters before the Board and, in effect, dismissing the appeal without prejudice. In the process, CBCA noted discrepancies between how contract appeals board have previously treated mootness, even identifying past instances where boards have dismissed mooted appeals with prejudice. But, reasoning that CDA appeals must contain a case or controversy to be appealed to the Federal Circuit, the Board held that the same requirement must also apply before a dispute can reach that level.

North East Mobile Health Services v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8381 – October 16, 2025

This appeal concerns the Department of Veterans Affairs’s (VA) contract with Northeast Mobile Health Services (“NEHMS”) to provide wheelchair transportation services to beneficiaries of the Togus VA Medical Center in Augusta, Maine. The contract set out that the VA would pay a “base rate” that would provide full compensation for one-way trips that did not exceed a mileage threshold of 25 miles, plus a mileage rate for each mile in excess of that threshold. But the contract did not specify how this formula was to be applied to round trips; in fact, the contract only contemplated the existence of round trip by providing additional instructions to provide drivers with scheduled times to return and pick up patients. NEHMS’s positions was that “each leg of a round-trip loaded transport is a distinct trip for purposes of the base rate, while the 25-mile exclusion applies only to the first (‘out’) leg of a round-trip loaded transport,” and it routinely charged both the base rate and the mileage rate within the first 25 miles of a return leg of a round trip. Arguing that this constituted double-billing, the VA refused to pay for return leg mileage under the base rate threshold starting with NEHMS’s October 2024 invoice. NEHMS then challenged this change under CBCA’s accelerated procedures.

The Board rejected NEHMS’s argument that the contract’s terms were ambiguous, specifically finding its interpretation was unreasonable because it presumed that “round trip” was a separate billing category. Instead, the Board held that the only reasonable interpretation of the plain language of the contract was that all trips were to be billed as one-way trips. For the same reason, the Board also rejected an alternate interpretation offered NEHMS that would have ignored the base rate altogether for round trip services. On the basis that the terms were not ambiguous, the Board also rejected NEHMS’s argument that the VA’s longstanding practice of paying for this mileage prior to October 2024 constituted a course of dealing which should inform the interpretation of the contract.

The Board further rejected an argument that the VA waived its right to contest NEHMS’s billing practices by establishing a course of dealing. NEHMS asserted that, because the contracting officer’s representative had approved double-billed mileage in the past, the parties established a common interpretation of the contract which effectively modified its terms. Acknowledging that the contracting officer’s representative had, in fact approved some of these claims, the Board nonetheless found that there was no evidence that the contracting officer had knowingly approved such a change to the contract provisions. The Board rejected an equitable estoppel argument by NEHMS on the same basis. Finally, the Board rejected an argument that the VA had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by reversing its interpretation of the contract, holding instead that “the VA is simply enforcing the terms of the contract and rectifying a situation in which it has

been paying more for services than required.” As a result, the Board granted summary judgment in favor of the VA and dismissed NEHMS’s appeal.

King & George, LLC (“K&G”), CBCA 7981 – June 5, 2025

K&G submitted an offer in response to a solicitation issued by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) for facilities operations and maintenance in nine federal buildings located in Florida. GSA’s solicitation contained a minimum staffing level for each building. The solicitation also had a deductions clause, entitling GSA to apply deductions if the work is performed unsatisfactorily or displays non-performance, including for non-compliance with the solicitation and contract requirements. After beginning performance in June 2021, GSA began to take deductions for workers not physically on site, leading to two modifications, one unilateral and one bilateral, to reflect a price adjustment for K&G’s purported staffing vacancies. K&G contested GSA’s modification to decrease the contract price, stating it did not violate the performance terms and that GSA also failed to notify K&G of these deductions. Following GSA’s COFD rejecting K&G’s claim for payment in the amount of the modification ($742,931.51), K&G filed an appeal before the CBCA. In granting K&G’s appeal, requiring GSA to pay $742,931.51 to K&G, the CBCA held that the solicitation’s terms did not permit deductions for staffing vacancies, reinforced by the contract’s other terms. GSA’s exercise of both contract options under their contract with K&G also implied that K&G’s performance was sufficient despite its alleged staffing shortfalls. The unilateral modification altering the contract price based on these vacancies was a violation of the solicitation’s Changes clause.

5 Stones Intelligence, Inc. v. Department of Justice, CBCA 8423 – May 27, 2025

Appellant filed at the Board claiming it was owed $198,605.94 under a contract for services provided to DOJ's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The Board dismissed a claim for lack of jurisdiction due to the Appellant’s failure to submit a certified claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.

TransOx, Inc. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8336 – June 2, 2025

Appellant sought an Equitable Adjustment for $135,805.67 under a VA contract for home oxygen services to medical center outpatients. The case was determined under the Board’s small claims procedure and therefore has no precedential value. Between the solicitation and drafting of the contract with Appellant, the VA made several changes to the language of the agreement that resulted in interpretive challenge to the meaning of “one time delivery fee” in the contract. TransOx argued that the fee applied to each delivery of contractor-purchased items, while the VA contended it was limited to one-off deliveries outside routine monthly visits. To support its definition, the Agency pointed to language in the solicitation, however, the Board judge noted that the solicitation is not part of the contract and cannot govern otherwise unambiguous terms. Although there were some issues with Appellant’s interpretation, it was within the “zone of reasonableness,” whereas the VA’s was not. In further support of the decision, the Board judge also noted that, even if there were an ambiguity, it would be construed against the VA in accordance with the doctrine of contra proferentem. Additionally, while there is generally a duty of inquiry when there is a contractual amgibuity, that did not apply here, since the Agency rewrote the contract such that the language differed substantially from the solicitation. The Board judge found for the Appellant for the amount claimed, permitted some legal fees since they fell under allowable contract administration costs, and denied a request for Prompt Payment Act interest, since the VA disputed entitlement to requested fees in good faith.

5 Stones Intelligence, Inc. v. Department of Justice, CBCA 8423 - May 27, 2025

DOJ had rejected 5Si’s claim to pay the remaining invoice amount for services rendered under a task order, providing an email from the DOJ Unit Chief related to 5Si’s contract and an email chain proving the amount due. Both the DOJ and 5Si filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as no certified claim was ever submitted to the Contracting Officer (“CO”) and that no COFD was ever issued in this dispute. The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss as 5Si never certified their claim per the CDA, never submitted a claim to the CO, and no COFD was issued by the CO.

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. v. Office of Personnel Management, CBCA 7357 - May 21, 2025

An employee of the Internal Revenue Service had been on long-term leave for over a year due to severe heart issues that required a heart transplant. Under applicable regulations, employees on leave longer than a year are no longer eligible for FEHB coverage. The Agency provided a form to disenroll the employee, but UHC did not process the form. To correct for this, UHC retroactively disenrolled the employee, and the agency reenrolled the employee, resulting in a $3,838,510.70 heart transplant procedure that UHC was required to pay. UHC alleged breach of contract. However, as part of its breach claim, UHC had to establish that, but for the breach, the employee would not have been enrolled in a healthcare plan. The Board notes that UHC failed to provide such evidence and therefore failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between the alleged breach and UHC’s damages. The Board denied the appeal.

Quality Trust, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Interior, CBCA 7451 - Apr. 4, 2025

Appellant, Quality Trust, Inc. (QTI), appealed the denial of a claim for $481,109.75 in standby damages. In response to QTI’s claim, the contracting officer (CO) requested information from to substantiate the claim. After some correspondence, the CO denied the claim for lack of support. On appeal, QTI argued a constructive suspension, asserting that DOI had caused a delay to the project by preventing masonry for several months when work would disturb nesting birds and by ordering a suspension for QTI to correct a mistake in price. QTI asserted unspecified latent conditions, had agreed to the time restrictions at the outset when signing the contract, and had made bid calculation and performance errors that were entirely concurrent with any asserted government-caused periods of delay. For those reasons, CBCA denied QTI’s appeal for constructive suspension and Eichley damages.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”)

Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc., ASBCA 64173 – September 19, 2025  Paragon Defense Solutions appealed its termination for default by the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) on a contract for the delivery of motor vehicle tow bars. When DLA exercised an option to order additional items, Paragon informed the agency that they were proposed for debarment and were prohibited from accepting a purchase order over $35,000. For the existing orders, Paragon faced delays due to its manufacturer’s extended lead time for orders. Of these delayed tow bars, DLA accepted twenty-six items but issued a show cause letter advising Paragon not to send additional items. Paragon was then debarred, and to avoid a termination for default, DLA offered a bilateral modification to reduce the order quantity to zero. Following this offer, in response to the show cause letter, Paragon supplied a response from its manufacturer citing disruptions in raw materials and higher-priority orders as reasons for the delays. Paragon also sent its manufacturer $50,000 in response to the show cause letter. After receiving Paragon’s response to the show cause letter, DLA terminated the contract for default and refused to accept additional items.

Paragon argued that DLA’s previous acceptance of late delivery constituted waiver of subsequent late delivery. Paragon also cited DLA’s failure to issue new dates in its modifications issued prior to Paragon’s notice to DLA of its proposed debarment. The Board denied the waiver claim, finding that the record did not support detrimental reliance on the agency’s conduct. In contrast, the show cause letter specifically stated Paragon was delinquent in its delivery and that no extension had been provided. Since Paragon attempted delivery after receipt of this letter, there was no detrimental reliance on the agency’s prior acts.

The Board also denied Paragon’s claim that the delay was excusable, since Paragon’s response to the show cause letter did not support this claim with attachments or documents. Paragon also failed to inform DLA of the delays in lead time, only doing so once the show cause order was issued. Lastly, the Board found no support for Paragon’s argument that the termination was in bad faith and that Paragon was not prejudiced since Paragon knew delivery was delayed, did not notify DLA of the delay, and DLA had the legal authority to terminate the contract due to the delay.

GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA 61380 – May 27, 2025

GSC Corporation appealed the denial of two claims for equitable adjustment. These claims arose after the contracting agency required GSC to fix defects and damage caused by two separate floods at a government work site and a separate claim for differing site conditions. The Board denied GSC's first differing site condition appeal for additional work needed to correct uneven floor slabs. The Board found that GSC had signed a release that subsequently barred it from pursuing any claims related to floor leveling. However, the Board partially ruled in favor of GSC on its appeal regarding the cause of the flooding. The government argued that the flood resulted from faulty workmanship by GSC’s subcontractor. In contrast, the Board found that the evidence GSC presented made its explanation for the flood more probable. The Board found for the Agency on a second flood incident, resulting in a partial denial.

Gideon Contracting, LLC (“Gideon”), ASBCA No. 63561 – May 12, 2025

The Army Corps of Engineers (“AC”) issued a task order under an existing IDIQ for civil work and construction on Pine Creek Lake to paint, patch, and repair a splitter wall and concrete discharge conduit on a dam inside the lake. Gideon received the notice to proceed in October 2020, with AC projecting the completion date to be April 19, 2021. Elevation rises in the lake throughout 2021 led to multiple delays and suspensions of work, leading Gideon to file an REA in September 2021 seeking $331,384.43 in costs for delays. The ACO approved an internal contract change that justified a 150-day time extension and $250,000, while the CO only extended the completion date without compensation and sought liquidated damages. For the first suspension, the ASBCA found that Gideon was entitled for an adjustment based on the increased price of performance after the government continued release of water beyond what was needed. Under the second suspension, Gideon was not permitted any recovery, but was entitled to an adjust for increased costs in performance via the third suspension. AC lost their liquidated damages claim before the Board as its silence a year after performance demonstrated that time was not of the essence, effectively waiving their right to assert this claim.

U.S. Aeroteam, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61933, 61934 – May 14, 2025

The Air Force awarded U.S. Aeroteam (“USAT”) a fixed-price contract to build 98 trailers for transporting C-17 engines but later terminated the contract for default after prolonged nonperformance. After subcontractor PDI raised prices for key running gear components, USAT opted to manufacture them in-house, incurring far higher costs. USAT submitted a $4M REA citing the running gear issue, later escalating it to litigation after partial denial. During this time, USAT halted production and repeatedly conditioned resuming work on REA resolution. Despite multiple cure notices, USAT failed to propose or adhere to a viable delivery schedule. The ASBCA upheld the default termination, rejecting USAT’s defenses and finding it failed to make progress or perform in good faith. The Board also upheld the Air Force’s right to recover over $3M in unliquidated progress payments since USAT delivered only 58 of 98 trailers.

A4 Construction Company, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 63252, 63456, 63626, 63961 - May 16, 2025

The VA awarded A4 Construction a firm-fixed-price contract to renovate restrooms at the Fresno VA Medical Center, later terminating the contract for default after A4 failed to resume work following a suspension of performance. During the project, the VA suspended work due to asbestos concerns, prompting A4 to request additional time and compensation. In response, the parties executed a bilateral modification extending the completion deadline by 105 days and including broad release language waiving “any and all claims” related to the suspension period. After the suspension lifted, A4 refused to return to work unless paid approximately $1.5 million in delay and impact costs, asserting claims for unabsorbed overhead, changes in contract scope, lost productivity, and extended performance costs. The VA issued a cure notice and ultimately terminated the contract for default due to A4’s continued refusal to perform. At the ASBCA, A4 argued that the release was invalid due to duress and ambiguity and did not apply to post-modification claims. The Board rejected these arguments, finding the release unambiguous, negotiated, and clearly applicable to the suspension period—the very basis of A4’s claims. The Board emphasized that A4 failed to timely object to the release language or preserve its rights and conditioned continued performance on demands already barred by the modification. Ultimately, the ASBCA upheld the default termination and denied all claims, concluding that A4 lost largely because it failed to respond appropriately to the release and attempted to relitigate issues it had contractually waived.

Walsh Turner Joint Venture II, ASBCA 63665 - May 8, 2025

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) awarded a FFP contract to Appellant to construct a new medical center. In 2022, Appellant notified USACE of increased steel costs and probable delay. Following exchanges between both parties, Appellant filed a certified claim for $1,694,899.21 for increased costs related to safety protocols based upon a 2021 vaccine EO, which the CO denied. On appeal, USACE filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, as the EO required Appellant’s compliance and did not provide grounds for an equitable adjustment. On the jurisdictional issue, the ASBCA denied USACE’s motion to dismiss but granted it on another basis, since the COVID clause that served as the basis of Appellant’s recovery was never incorporated in the contract.

GSI Pacific, Inc., ASBCA 63520 - May 7, 2025

USACE awarded a contract to Appellant for the removal of munitions from a site. Two years later, Appellant and the USACE entered a bilateral modification to reduce the number of acres cleared on the site. Both parties disputed whether the contract required removal in the surface and subsurface areas based on several documents, leading USACE to deny Appellant’s REA for $4,530,424.76, which Appellant then appealed. On this issue, the ASBCA held that one document, the Decision Document, was incorporated into the contract, meaning that the contract required Appellant to conduct subsurface removal, but not locate and remove munitions inside any solid rock. Summary judgment was granted on this issue.

Chromalloy Component Services, Inc., ASBCA 63408 - May 6, 2025

Chromalloy was awarded a firm-fixed price contract with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to remanufacture turbine assemblies for the F108 aircraft. The contract required OEM blades at a fixed price for the base year, with TBD pricing on option years. Chromalloy purchased an inventory of blades, and then USAF modified the contract to provide the blades as government furnished material (GFM), sticking the contractor with excess supply. The agency then placed a large order late in the base year. At the Board, Chromalloy alleged that USAF failed to disclose superior knowledge of blade pricing and availability; also alleged that the use of GFM caused financial harm; and that USAF violated prior course of dealings by placing a large order at the end of the base period. ASBCA denied the appeal, stating that an alleged promise made to Chromalloy occurred after performance began, undermining the superior knowledge claim; the contract specifically allowed the USAF to provide blades as GFM, providing no assurances to Chromalloy upon which their order was made; the order was made validly within the base year contract period; and that there was no constructive change, as Chromalloy did not perform work beyond the contract requirements.