GovSpring 2026 Litigation Roundups

United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”)

Echelon Services, LLC v. United States, No. 23-31 (Fed. Cl.) - August 24, 2026

Echelon Services, LLC, an 8(a) set-aside contractor owned by a Native Hawaiian Organization, was awarded an Army contract to provide McAfee software licenses, structured with a discounted base year offset by escalating option-year pricing. After the base year, the Army declined to exercise any option years, and Echelon sued for breach of contract. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that Echelon had assigned away its right to the contract payments and therefore had no damages to recover, since Echelon had separately assigned its payment rights to both Wilmington Trust and, through a financing arrangement, to ePlus Government, Inc., which in turn reassigned its interest to Wells Fargo.

The court agreed that Echelon's arrangement with ePlus violated the Anti-Assignment Acts on multiple independent grounds: Echelon had already assigned the same payment rights to Wilmington Trust, ePlus never filed the required notice of assignment with the government, and ePlus's subsequent reassignment to Wells Fargo ran afoul of the statutory bar on reassignment. Because the assignment to ePlus was therefore null and void as against the government, Echelon retained the sole right to sue for its own damages, but the court found Echelon had already received its full expected profit through the assignment price paid by ePlus and so suffered no direct harm from the government's non-renewal.

The court nonetheless declined to fully dispose of the case, finding that the government had not met its burden under the Severin doctrine to show that Echelon bears no potential liability to a third party, such as ePlus or Wells Fargo, that could support a pass-through claim. Because Echelon's own briefing left unclear exactly who it might owe money to and in what amount, the court granted the government's motion in part and denied it in part, ordering the parties to file a joint status report addressing what liability Echelon claims to face and what discovery might be needed to sort it out.

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-292C (Fed. Cl.) - August 22, 2026

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT) filed a post-award bid protest challenging the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) issuance of a task order to Peraton, Inc. for Durable Medical Equipment claims processing support. Although GDIT and Peraton received identical high ratings on all three non-price factors, Peraton's price came in $16 million lower, largely because Peraton proposed hosting its mainframe through a third-party provider rather than operating its own physical data center as GDIT did. GDIT argued this data center solution violated the solicitation's requirement that contractors support the system "at their data center," that CMS's own subsequent interest in transitioning to its internal CACHE data center showed the solicitation misrepresented the agency's actual needs, and that CMS evaluated the two firms' quality assurance surveillance plans disparately.

The court denied most of GDIT's challenges. It found the solicitation's reference to "their data center" reasonably encompassed Peraton's third-party hosting arrangement, and that in any event GDIT had waived any ambiguity argument by failing to raise it before award despite other offerors submitting multiple questions on the same requirement. The court also rejected GDIT's claim that the agency's needs had changed, finding a single post-award phone call referencing a possible future shift to CACHE fell well short of the clear evidence needed to show the solicitation was inaccurate at the time of award, and it found no disparate treatment in the QASP evaluations because Peraton's proposal contained more concrete, quantifiable performance metrics.

GDIT's Level of Effort argument fared better. The court found that CMS's evaluation record contained a significant, unexplained internal contradiction, repeatedly citing an inflated labor-hours figure for Peraton that had no basis in Peraton's actual proposal, undermining the rationality of both the technical evaluation and the resulting best-value tradeoff. Because GDIT was the runner-up and the error was not insignificant, the court found prejudice and remanded the matter to CMS for 45 days to reevaluate Peraton's proposed labor hours using accurate figures and to conduct a new best-value determination. The court separately denied GDIT's motion to complete or supplement the administrative record, finding GDIT's theory that CMS secretly planned the CACHE transition before award rested on speculation rather than the clear evidence or strong showing of bad faith required to expand the record.

Vectrus Federal Services GmbH v. United States, No. 26-175 (Fed. Cl.) - August 18, 2026 (Reissued August 18, 2026)

Vectrus Federal Services GmbH challenged the Army’s award of a contract to maintain U.S. Army Garrison Rheinland Pfalz in Germany to PAE Applied Technologies LLC. Vectrus argued that the Army unreasonably credited PAE with past projects performed by its corporate affiliates, Amentum and DynCorp, without adequate proof of meaningful affiliate involvement, improperly gave PAE full credit for a joint venture project in Guam despite PAE holding only a partial interest, accepted PAE’s proposal despite doubts about whether its key personnel would meet mandatory German language fluency requirements, and misled Vectrus during discussions by erroneously placing a narrative comment about an uncertainty rating in the deficiency column of an evaluation notice, causing Vectrus to unnecessarily overhaul its staffing approach.

COFC denied Vectrus’s motion and granted judgment for the government and PAE. The Court found PAE’s proposal adequately demonstrated its affiliates’ meaningful involvement and tied their past project experience to the type of maintenance work required under the solicitation, and that the Army reasonably credited PAE with the full value of the Guam project because the joint venture that performed it was wholly owned by PAE’s corporate parent. The Court further held that the German language requirement was expressly a post-award matter under the solicitation, and that PAE’s certification of its intent to comply was sufficient absent significant countervailing evidence. As for the misplaced evaluation narrative, the Court found the substance of the communication still directed Vectrus to the areas of its proposal needing clarification, meaning the discussions were meaningful despite the formatting error. The Court also noted that even setting aside PAE’s past performance rating, the source selection authority had independently determined PAE offered the better value, rendering any error harmless.

CW Government Travel, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-366 (Fed. Cl.) - August 18, 2026 (Reissued August 18, 2026)

CW Government Travel, Inc. (CWT), the incumbent contractor, challenged the General Services Administration’s award of a travel management services contract for the U.S. Marine Corps to Omega World Travel, Inc. CWT argued that GSA relied on an incorrect staffing figure when comparing the offerors’ proposed agent counts, unreasonably declined to downgrade Omega for failing to identify a specific number of dedicated after-hours agents, improperly weighted CWT’s historical phone response times without disclosing that emphasis, and credited Omega’s past performance references despite what CWT claimed were stale or dissimilar projects. CWT further challenged GSA’s determination that Omega’s pricing was fair and reasonable.

COFC denied CWT’s motion and granted judgment for the government and Omega. The Court found that GSA’s staffing comparison, though it contained an isolated misstatement regarding one line item, did not undermine the overall rationality of the agency’s tradeoff analysis, and that the solicitation never required offerors to specify a fixed number of after-hours agents. The Court also held that the solicitation’s repeated references to phone response metrics gave GSA a reasonable basis to weigh CWT’s past shortfalls heavily, and that GSA reasonably read the three-year recency window to include projects that remained active during that period even if they began earlier. Finally, the Court found that Omega adequately tied its pricing to its schedule rates and non-schedule line items to support a fair and reasonable price determination. Because CWT could not show any part of GSA’s evaluation was arbitrary or capricious, the Court denied injunctive relief.

Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC v. United States, No. 25-2075C (Fed. Cl.) - August 17, 2026

Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC challenged the Navy’s award of a nearly $100 million base operations support contract at Naval Base Coronado to CCS King George 2 LLC (CCS KG), an 8(a) mentor-protégé joint venture. Chugach argued the Navy improperly credited CCS KG with corporate experience gained through other joint ventures rather than CCS KG itself, ignored the poor past performance of CCS KG’s mentor member on a predecessor janitorial contract at the same base, and failed to separately assess its protégé member’s own lack of experience.

COFC granted judgment for Chugach in part. It upheld the Navy’s decision to credit CCS KG with prime contractor experience performed through joint ventures involving its mentor member, King & George, finding the solicitation’s definition of prime contractor experience reasonably extended to work performed by a joint venture’s members. The Court also rejected Chugach’s protégé-experience argument as an untimely attack on the solicitation’s plain terms, which expressly exempted mentor-protégé joint ventures from that requirement. However, the Court sustained Chugach’s challenge to the Navy’s past performance evaluation, holding that a marginal CPARS rating King & George received on a recent, closely related janitorial contract at the same installation was too close at hand and too relevant for the Navy to ignore, particularly where the same evaluator who authored that CPARS also sat on the source selection evaluation board. Because past performance was the principal discriminator between the two highest-rated offerors, the Court found the omission prejudicial, vacated the award, and enjoined the Navy from proceeding until it conducts a new evaluation.

Seabee Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-506 (Fed. Cl.) - August 17, 2026

Following the Court’s July 2026 decision rejecting its bid protest on the merits, Seabee Construction, Inc. moved for an injunction pending its appeal to the Federal Circuit, seeking to halt the awardee’s performance of a contract to construct an extension to a VA national cemetery in Idaho. Seabee argued it had a strong likelihood of success on appeal regarding whether certain experience requirements in the solicitation constituted definitive responsibility criteria.

The Court denied the motion, finding that Seabee had not shown even a substantial case on the merits, noting that its own prior ruling, echoed by a related GAO decision, had already concluded the experience requirements were performance specifications rather than responsibility criteria subject to review. Even assuming a substantial case existed, the Court found the remaining factors did not tilt in Seabee’s favor: the government had shown that halting construction risked leaving the cemetery without adequate above-ground burial niches before an appeal could be resolved, given the limited construction season and delays already caused by the protest and appeal, and the awardee had already resumed work. Weighing the strong public interest in timely completing veteran burial space against Seabee’s more limited showing of harm, the Court denied Seabee’s motion for an injunction pending appeal.

Protection Strategies Incorporated, LLC v. United States, No. 25-1679 (Fed. Cl.) - August 14, 2026

Protection Strategies Incorporated (PSI) protested the FBI’s award of a blanket purchase agreement for background investigation and analytical support services to Amentum Services, Inc., following a corrective action reevaluation that replaced an earlier award to a different vendor. PSI challenged the agency’s evaluation of both its own and Amentum’s quotations under the Management Approach and Technical factors, arguing the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and misread key portions of both proposals, including PSI’s staffing milestones, its management organizational chart, and its approach to specific PWS support sections.

The Court denied PSI’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the cross-motions filed by the government and Amentum. The Court found that each of the agency’s disputed findings, from PSI’s ambiguous use of dashed and solid lines in its management chart to its vague references to unnamed stakeholders in its root cause analysis, fell within the scope of the evaluation criteria as written and reflected a reasonable reading of PSI’s own proposal language. The Court likewise rejected PSI’s challenges to Amentum’s evaluation, holding that PSI’s complaints amounted to disagreement over the level of detail Amentum provided rather than any showing that the agency’s conclusions were irrational. Because the agency’s best-value tradeoff thoroughly walked through the comparative merits of each proposal across multiple factors, the Court upheld the award and denied PSI’s request for injunctive relief.

Tetra Tech, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-1053 (Fed. Cl.) - August 14, 2026

Tetra Tech filed a post-award bid protest challenging the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a fuel support services contract to Pond Constructors, Inc., and moved concurrently for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt Pond’s performance, which was scheduled to begin just three days after the complaint was filed. Tetra Tech argued it would suffer irreparable harm because any delay in enjoining performance would shorten the length of a resolicited or re-awarded contract, costing it valuable past performance and corporate experience credit.

The Court denied the TRO, finding Tetra Tech’s claimed harm speculative because the government confirmed the contract’s funding was not limited to a single year, meaning Tetra Tech could still obtain the full three years of performance it originally bid on if it ultimately prevailed. The Court also found the balance of equities and public interest weighed decisively against an injunction, crediting the government’s representation that the contract supported essential fuel services for military operations and disaster response, and that any interruption would cause a service lapse the government could not bridge on short notice. Finally, the Court noted that Tetra Tech’s own delay, waiting more than a month after GAO denied its protest and filing its TRO motion only after business hours two days before the incumbent’s bridge contract expired, undercut any claimed urgency. The Court deferred ruling on the separate preliminary injunction request pending further expedited briefing.

Government Acquisitions, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-107 (Fed. Cl.) - August 4, 2026

Government Acquisitions, Inc. (GAI) sued the Navy after it declined to exercise any option years on a software licensing contract for Palo Alto Networks products. GAI's quote, submitted in response to the Navy's solicitation, stated that the government “shall exercise all renewal options” once funding was available, and GAI argued this language was incorporated into the resulting contract, making the Navy's refusal to extend past the base year a breach. GAI also raised claims for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, the government’s superior knowledge, constructive termination for convenience, and appealed its denied request for an equitable adjustment.

COFC granted the government's motion to dismiss across all counts. The court found that the contract's award language referencing GAI's quote did not clearly communicate an intent to incorporate the quote's terms, and that the contract's own provisions, including a fully incorporated FAR clause, consistently described the additional years as discretionary options rather than mandatory obligations. The court further held that even if GAI's quote had been incorporated, an obligation to exercise every option year upon receiving future appropriations would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, since the government cannot bind itself to spend money before Congress has appropriated it, regardless of how the commitment is packaged.

Having found no enforceable obligation to extend the contract, the court made quick work of GAI's remaining theories. It held there was no breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing because a party cannot invoke that doctrine to challenge conduct the contract expressly permits. It rejected the superior knowledge claim because any information about the Navy's plan to replace the software did not affect the cost or duration of the base year, which GAI fully performed and was paid for. It found no constructive termination for convenience because the Navy never took an affirmative act to stop performance, but simply let the contract lapse under its own terms. And it dismissed the equitable adjustment claim because the Navy made no change, constructive or otherwise, to the contract's requirements.

Sallyport Global Services, Ltd. v. United States, No. 25-1128 (Fed. Cl.) - May 22, 2026 (Reissued July 22, 2026)

Sallyport Global Services challenged the Air Force's decision to award a sole source contract to Vectrus Systems LLC for base operations support at an air base in Iraq, arguing that the Iraqi Ministry of Defense's sole source request was tainted by bribery and kickback allegations involving a subcontractor with reported ties to Iranian-backed militias. The government and Vectrus moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that Sallyport's claims amounted to a challenge to an international agreement over which the court lacked jurisdiction and that the dispute presented a nonjusticiable political question.

The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that Sallyport had both Article III and Tucker Act standing because its claims turned on the Air Force's compliance with domestic procurement law rather than any policy judgment committed to the political branches. On the merits, however, the court denied Sallyport's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted judgment for the government and Vectrus. The court found that the Air Force adequately consulted legal counsel throughout the procurement as required by the Security Assistance Management Manual, that the contracting officer had no obligation to independently vet Vectrus's subcontractors when determining Vectrus's own responsibility, and that even assuming the Never Contract with the Enemy Act applied, Sallyport failed to show that the absence of certain contract clauses or vetting steps prejudiced its position given that Vectrus had already removed the flagged subcontractor before award.

Kidston Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, No. 25-734 (Fed. Cl.) - July 17, 2026

Kidston Holdings Group, a trucking broker, sued FEMA for breach of contract after a driver it dispatched during Hurricane Hilary response efforts was turned away at a distribution center and paid only the standard $210 truck-ordered-not-used rate rather than the higher per diem rate discussed over email and by phone. Kidston lost the initial spot bid competition to another provider, but alleged that a FEMA transportation specialist later called and verbally agreed to use Kidston's trucks at the previously quoted rate, forming either a verbal contract or, alternatively, a written one evidenced by the truck-ordered-not-used bill of lading FEMA eventually issued.

The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, finding that Kidston failed to plausibly allege the existence of any contract. The truck-ordered-not-used bill of lading did not imply an earlier written agreement, since FEMA issued that document only to compensate Kidston after sending its truck away, not to memorialize a carriage agreement with the required cargo and destination details. The court also rejected the verbal contract theory, explaining that FEMA's own rules require spot bid awards to proceed through a defined written process, that Kidston's own emails showed it was still awaiting bill of lading numbers rather than treating a deal as finalized, and that FEMA's communications reflected no intent to bind the agency. The court further held that even if a contract existed, FEMA's rules expressly permit cancellation of a transportation order after a truck arrives so long as the provider is reimbursed the standard rate, which occurred here, and that Kidston's remaining allegations about the agency steering its driver to a competing broker sounded in tort and fell outside the court's jurisdiction.

Massman Construction Co. v. United States, No. 25-2158 (Fed. Cl.) - July 7, 2026

Massman Construction Co. challenged the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a construction contract to McMillen, Inc. for the replacement and repair of Tainter gates at the Webbers Falls Lock and Dam in Oklahoma. After Massman filed its protest, the agency took partial corrective action and re-awarded the contract to McMillen without exercising any of the solicitation’s options. Massman argued the corrective action failed to cure the prejudice from the original award and separately challenged the agency’s ratings on past performance, technical approach, and organization as arbitrary.

COFC found most of the agency’s evaluation reasonable, including its treatment of past performance and technical approach, and dismissed Massman’s challenge to the agency’s initial exercise of options. But the Court sustained Massman’s protest as to the Organization subfactor, finding that the agency rated Massman’s document control system lower than McMillen’s nearly identical proposal without adequately explaining the disparity. Because that subfactor was the only one distinguishing the two technically equivalent proposals, the flawed rating was prejudicial. The Court vacated the award, enjoined performance, and remanded the matter to the agency for sixty days to conduct a new technical evaluation or trade-off analysis, or to take other appropriate action.

The Toota Group, LLC v. United States, No. 25-1956 (Fed. Cl.) - July 6, 2026

The Toota Group challenged a series of Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) procurements for runflat lubricant used on military vehicles, arguing that DLA’s requirements unlawfully restricted competition, imposed unequal and arbitrary qualification testing requirements, and dragged out review of Toota’s application to become an approved source. The government moved to dismiss on jurisdictional and standing grounds and argued that the merits favored the agency regardless.

The Court found it had jurisdiction to hear Toota’s challenge, reasoning that DLA’s source approval process is closely enough tied to the recurring lubricant procurements to count as action “in connection with” a procurement, and that Toota qualified as a prospective offeror despite the absence of an active solicitation. The Court also declined to find the protests moot, since DLA continued to apply the same requirements that gave rise to the dispute. On the merits, however, Toota came up short. The Court held that the procurements were properly conducted under simplified acquisition procedures rather than full competition rules, that DLA’s use of emergency procurement authority was adequately justified, and that the agency’s qualification testing requirements reflected reasonable technical judgment rather than an unlawful barrier to entry. Because Toota could not show that correcting any of the alleged errors would have improved its chances of becoming an approved source, given independent deficiencies in its own submission, the Court denied its motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government’s cross-motion.

Ingham Regional Medical Center, et al. v. United States, No. 13-821 (Fed. Cl.) - June 17, 2026

Six hospitals pursued a breach of contract claim against the Department of Defense Military Health System, alleging that TRICARE underpaid them for outpatient radiology services over several years. The dispute centered on a highly unusual contract formed through a series of notices, FAQs, and settlement releases known as the Discretionary Payment Process. This process was created to reimburse hospitals after a study revealed that TRICARE payments fell short of comparable Medicare rates. On cross motions for summary judgment, the parties heavily contested the proper interpretation of the complex data extraction and adjustment steps outlined in the agreement.

The United States Court of Federal Claims granted in part and denied in part the competing summary judgment motions. The court largely agreed with the government’s strict textual interpretation of the agreement. It rejected the plaintiffs’ attempts to use extrinsic evidence and broad appeals to the contract’s general purpose to override the plain language of the data adjustment steps. For example, the court held that the government properly excluded claims processed by a specific contractor because those claims unambiguously fell under a contractual exclusion for TRICARE for Life claims. Ultimately, the court found the government liable for a minor data adjustment error but largely upheld the agency’s implementation of the settlement agreement.

West Pacific-CMCS JV v. United States, No. 26-743 (Fed. Cl.) - June 16, 2026

West Pacific-CMCS JV filed a bid protest challenging the United States Space Force’s award of a multiple award construction contract. The plaintiff alleged that the agency arbitrarily evaluated its relevant experience and unequally engaged in clarifications. As part of its requested relief, the plaintiff asked the court to direct the agency to terminate the contracts awarded to the successful offerors and reevaluate the proposals. Subsequently, JG Contracting, one of the four awardees, filed a motion to intervene in the protest to protect its economic interests.

The plaintiff opposed the motion to intervene, arguing that because the agency sought to award up to five contracts but only awarded four, its protest posed no risk to JG Contracting’s award. The United States Court of Federal Claims rejected this argument and granted the motion to intervene. The court emphasized that the plaintiff is the master of its complaint, and the plaintiff’s own complaint explicitly requested the termination of the awarded contracts. Because granting the requested relief would directly and immediately result in the loss of JG Contracting’s award, the court found that the awardee had an unconditional right to intervene.

Kayhan Space Corp. v. United States, No. 25-cv-104 (Fed. Cl.) - June 8, 2026

Protester Kayhan Space Corp. challenged a Department of the Air Force procurement decision under the Small Business Innovation Research program. The dispute centered on the agency’s application of the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022. This legislation introduced enhanced national security due diligence requirements specifically designed to prevent adversarial foreign influence in federal contracting. Kayhan objected to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal and the ultimate procurement decision made under these newly implemented security guidelines.

The United States Court of Federal Claims denied Kayhan’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the cross-motion filed by the government. The Court highlighted the paramount importance of national security in government contracting and found no error in the agency’s evaluation process. Because the Court concluded that the protest failed entirely on its merits, it also denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. This decision underscores the substantial deference courts afford to agencies when they evaluate proposals against recently enacted national security and foreign ownership restrictions. The ruling serves as a clear reminder that protestors face a particularly steep uphill battle when challenging an agency’s due diligence determinations regarding potential national security risks.

CAN SoftTech, Inc. v. United States, No. 24-1009 (Fed. Cl.) - May 8, 2026

CAN SoftTech, Inc. (CSI) challenged the General Services Administration’s (GSA) decision to terminate its task order award for Air Force IT support services and to re-solicit the requirement. In a prior ruling, the Court remanded the matter to GSA for further explanation of its cancellation rationale, which initially cited an outdated Performance Work Statement (PWS) and solicitation ambiguities in a conclusory manner. On remand, GSA submitted a Supplemental Decision Document (SDD) detailing 36 necessary PWS modifications, including the removal of three core deliverables and the introduction of new cybersecurity and platform requirements, and explaining that proceeding without changes would violate principles of fair competition. CSI filed a renewed motion for judgment on the administrative record, arguing the SDD failed to reasonably assess the materiality of the changes, relied on post-hoc rationalizations, and that the agency breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by offering a pretextual rationale.

The United States Court of Federal Claims denied CSI’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government’s cross-motion. The Court found that GSA coherently and reasonably explained its termination and re-solicitation decision, concluding that the necessary PWS revisions constituted cardinal changes that could not be implemented through targeted amendments or re-evaluations without undermining fair competition. Furthermore, the Court rejected CSI’s pretext argument, emphasizing that a plaintiff must establish allegations of pretext by clear and convincing evidence. Although CSI pointed out that a recently issued short-term bridge contract omitted the proposed PWS changes, the Court found reasonable the agency’s explanation that the bridge contract was merely a stop-gap measure meant to maintain the status quo and avoid a lapse in services.

CSI Aviation, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-1338C (Fed. Cl.) - May 12, 2026

CSI Aviation, Inc. filed a bid protest challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to conduct a limited competition procurement, citing unusual and compelling urgency, for Comprehensive Support to Removal Operations (CSRO) services and the subsequent award to Salus Worldwide Solutions Corporation. CSI, an air charter services provider, alleged it was wrongfully precluded from competing and that DHS violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and the FAR by limiting the competition. However, the government and the intervenor, Salus, argued that CSI’s complaint failed to establish interested party status because CSI did not allege it had the capability and experience to deliver the complete, integrated solution required by the multifaceted CSRO Statement of Work.

The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III and statutory standing, and alternatively granted the government’s and intervenor’s cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. The Court emphasized that an actual or prospective offeror must plead and prove it can perform the contract to establish that it is an interested party and that it suffered prejudice. Because CSI relied entirely on its experience in air charter services and failed to demonstrate its ability to fulfill the rest of the CSRO requirements, such as establishing international staging areas, facility management, and healthcare provisions, the Court found CSI lacked standing. Furthermore, the Court rejected CSI’s belated attempt to introduce new evidence regarding teaming agreements in its reply brief, noting it was untimely and insufficient to cure the jurisdictional defects.

ASG Solutions Corporation d/b/a American Systems Group v. United States, No. 24-1966 (Fed. Cl.) - May 6, 2026

ASG Solutions Corporation was awarded a Navy Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) task order to provide engineering and program-management support services. After six months, the Navy terminated the task order for default, prompting ASG to file a CDA claim for wrongful termination, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After the Court previously ruled against ASG on cross-motions for summary judgment, ASG filed a motion for relief from that judgment under RCFC 60(b)(3), alleging that the government engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.

The COFC denied ASG’s motion for relief from judgment. The Court emphasized that a movant must demonstrate fraud or misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, and that “unsubstantiated innuendo and uncorroborated inferences” are insufficient. To obtain relief, the alleged fraud must have actually prevented the movant from receiving a fair hearing or trial. The Court concluded that the fraud alleged by ASG did not prevent the company from fully and fairly presenting its case, rendering the motion meritless.

ABV Rock Group Co. Ltd. v. United States, No. 24-704 (Fed. Cl.) - May 5, 2026

ABV Rock Group Co. Ltd. filed a complaint under the CDA challenging a termination for default by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). ABV had been awarded a contract by Saudi Arabia, paid for by the USACE, to perform construction on several Saudi military bases. Following the termination, ABV sought to convert the default termination into a termination for convenience and requested $28.7 million in direct and delay costs, along with a 1,714-day time extension. The government moved for partial dismissal, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction over most of the claims because the contracting officer had not yet rendered a final decision on ABV’s certified claims, as required by the CDA.

The COFC granted the partial dismissal for the claims that ABV did not oppose, which included alleged delays related to owner-impeded performance, fire-protection submittals, fire-alarm systems, the network-activity baseline schedule, and fire-protection specialists. ABV subsequently moved for leave to file a third amended complaint to reallege the facts underlying these dismissed claims, arguing they supported its surviving claims of a violation of good faith and fair dealing and improper termination. The Court denied the motion to amend, clarifying that the relevant facts were already present in the second amended complaint and did not need to be realleged to support the remaining, uncontested subclaims.

Crestview Clinical Laboratory, LLC v. United States, No. 24-cv-0995 (Fed. Cl.) - April 24, 2026

In this breach-of-contract action, Crestview Clinical Laboratory, LLC filed suit against the United States seeking $69 million for COVID-19 testing services it furnished during the pandemic. Crestview alleged that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) breached an express or implied-in-fact contract and violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by pausing and ultimately reversing reimbursements obligated under the COVID-19 Uninsured Program (UIP). The government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Crestview failed to plausibly allege the existence of a contract with the United States or identify a money-mandating statute that would confer jurisdiction on the Court.

The United States Court of Federal Claims granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to dismiss. The Court found that Crestview successfully and plausibly alleged the existence of an express or implied-in-fact contract with the government, as well as a valid claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, allowing those primary claims (Counts I-III) to proceed to discovery. The Court noted that whether specific funding-availability language was incorporated into the contract’s terms could not be determined without further factual development. However, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint because Crestview failed to identify an independent money-mandating source of substantive law to support it.

Active Deployment Systems, LLC v. United States, No. 26-510 - April 21, 2026

Active Deployment Systems, LLC (ADS) filed a bid protest at the GAO after losing a contract to provide temporary housing facilities for Customs and Border Protection trainees at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). The protest triggered an automatic stay of performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). FLETC subsequently issued a Determination and Findings (D&F) to override the stay, citing an urgent and compelling need to house and train new border agents hired under a Presidential Executive Order to address national security concerns. ADS moved for a preliminary injunction in the Court of Federal Claims to halt contract performance, arguing the override was arbitrary and capricious.

The Court of Federal Claims denied ADS’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The Court found that ADS was unlikely to succeed on the merits because FLETC’s override decision was rational and properly considered the agency’s legal obligations, capacity limitations, lack of alternatives, and the harms of delaying training for hundreds of new officers. Although ADS established some irreparable harm due to the ongoing construction of the temporary facilities, the Court found this harm was mitigated by ADS’s unexplained delay in filing suit. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the balance of harms and the public interest in national security and law enforcement training weighed heavily in favor of the government and against reinstating the stay.

Big Easy Studios, LLC v. United States, No. 17-879 - April 17, 2026

Big Easy Studios, LLC leased space at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) to film Hollywood movies under a series of short-term Space Act Agreements (SAAs). Despite ongoing negotiations and Big Easy expending millions on improvements in anticipation of a ten-year Enhanced Use Lease (EUL), the parties never executed a long-term agreement because the NASA contracting officer lacked the authority to bind the agency to such a lease. After NASA terminated the final short-term agreement, Big Easy filed suit alleging breach of an implied-in-fact long-term contract, breach of an express short-term contract, quantum meruit, and equitable estoppel.

The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on all claims except for the breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Court held that no implied-in-fact contract existed because the contracting officer lacked express or implied actual leasing authority, and the existence of the express short-term SAAs precluded an implied contract on the same subject matter. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the quantum meruit claim for lack of jurisdiction and rejected the equitable estoppel claim because the government did not engage in affirmative misconduct and the contracting officer acted outside his authority. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report regarding the next steps for the remaining good faith and fair dealing claim.

Revelations Counseling and Consulting, LLC v. United States, No. 25-2169C - April 17, 2026

Revelations Counseling and Consulting, LLC filed a bid protest challenging its exclusion from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) procurement for contact center staffing. The VA eliminated Revelations’ proposal without substantive evaluation because it failed to comply with mandatory certification requirements regarding the Limitations on Subcontracting, specifically VAAR 852.219-75. Revelations argued its certification attempt was good enough because it referenced the clause and its signature elsewhere in the proposal authenticated the writing.

The Court of Federal Claims denied Revelations’ motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government’s cross-motion. The Court emphasized that when a solicitation makes a requirement mandatory, strict compliance is required, and prospective offerors must “turn square corners”. The Court held that the VA reasonably excluded the proposal because Revelations failed to provide the individualized signature and authorization clause demanded by the explicit terms of the VAAR certification provision, which serve the substantive purpose of holding contractors accountable for subcontracting limitations.

LOGMET, LLC, B-423066.2 - April 16, 2026

Protester LOGMET challenged its non-selection for a Department of the Air Force multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for maintenance, repair, and overhaul services. LOGMET argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable and improperly refused to conduct discussions to allow the firm to cure the proposal’s deficiencies. Specifically, LOGMET’s proposal was rejected because it failed to include a mandatory self-scoring matrix, which meant the firm could not meet the solicitation’s minimum technical threshold rating of 40,000 points.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest. First, the GAO affirmed that the agency’s evaluation was entirely reasonable because the omitted self-scoring matrix was a material requirement clearly stated in the solicitation. Second, the GAO firmly rejected the argument that the Air Force was required to engage in discussions or clarifications to let LOGMET fix the error. The GAO noted that the solicitation explicitly warned offerors that the agency intended to make awards without conducting discussions. Furthermore, because the missing matrix was a material omission rather than a minor clerical error, it could not be legally resolved through limited clarifications. Thus, the agency acted well within its discretion in rejecting the technically unacceptable proposal without offering the firm an opportunity to revise it.

Identity One, LLC, B-424040.2, B-424040.3 - April 14, 2026

Identity One, LLC challenged the implementation and scope of corrective action taken by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, concerning a contract for hand-held biometric reader hardware, software, and maintenance services. Following an initial protest against the award to Parroco Production Group, Inc., the agency opted to take corrective action by terminating the contract and issuing a new solicitation for only the remainder of the requirement. Identity One argued that the agency improperly narrowed the scope of the corrective action by not resoliciting the entire requirement, and further alleged that the agency unduly delayed its implementation.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s actions reasonable due to the unique circumstances surrounding the procurement. The GAO noted that a government shutdown commenced the day after the initial contract was awarded, which resulted in the awardee continuing performance for 43 days and nearly completing the contract before a stop-work order could be issued. Because a substantial portion of the work was already finished, the GAO concluded that the agency's decision to resolicit only the uncompleted remainder of the requirement fell safely within its broad discretion to determine the details of its corrective action. Finally, the GAO rejected the protester’s claim that the Coast Guard unduly delayed implementing the corrective action. The record demonstrated that the agency acted promptly by issuing a stop-work order immediately after Identity One filed the current protest, and it quickly commenced settlement and termination negotiations with the awardee. Ultimately, because the protester failed to show that the agency’s actions were unreasonable or violated procurement law, the GAO denied the protest.

ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC v. United States, No. 26-451 (Fed. Cl.) - April 14, 2026

ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC (AFIS) filed a post-award bid protest challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) award of two contracts for student-support and facilities-operation services at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to Dawson MCG, LLC. AFIS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the transition of the contracts from the incumbent (an AFIS affiliate) to Dawson. AFIS alleged that DHS arbitrarily and capriciously evaluated the proposals across multiple factors. Most notably, AFIS argued that the agency improperly credited Dawson with the past performance and prior experience of its corporate affiliates without Dawson specifying how those affiliates would be meaningfully involved in performing the new contracts.

The United States Court of Federal Claims agreed that AFIS demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the evaluation of Dawson’s prior experience and past performance. The Court emphasized that an agency may only credit an offeror for the past performance of its affiliates if the proposal demonstrates that those affiliates will have a significant, committed role in the contract. Because Dawson’s proposal only provided vague, generic statements about relying on its entire corporate family without detailing which affiliates would perform specific tasks or supply resources, the Court found the agency’s high-confidence ratings for Dawson to be arbitrary and capricious.

Despite this flawed evaluation, the Court denied AFIS’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court concluded that AFIS failed to establish irreparable harm, noting that the loss of incumbent competitive advantages and some personnel are standard harms experienced by any incumbent losing a successor contract. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that if AFIS ultimately prevails on the merits, the evaluation errors can be fully remedied by requiring DHS to reevaluate the existing proposals and conduct a new best-value determination, meaning extraordinary preliminary relief was unwarranted at this stage.

CSlope Solutions, LLC, B-422249.5 - April 13, 2026

CSlope Solutions, LLC requested reconsideration of a prior GAO decision that denied its protest concerning a Department of the Army task order for customer care support services at Arlington National Cemetery. CSlope argued that the GAO’s previous decision contained material errors of fact and law regarding the evaluation of its past performance and the agency’s responsibility determination. First, CSlope claimed that the GAO failed to consider its argument that the Army improperly neglected to reevaluate CSlope’s past performance after finding its proposed key personnel unacceptable. The GAO rejected this argument, noting that CSlope had not actually raised this specific contention in its underlying protest, making it an improper piecemeal presentation of arguments that cannot be introduced during reconsideration. Furthermore, the GAO noted that the agency did, in fact, evaluate CSlope’s past performance and reasonably assigned it a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating, which the GAO had already concluded was properly considered in the award decision.

Second, CSlope alleged that the GAO committed a legal error by analyzing whether the Army made a “nonresponsibility determination” rather than assessing whether the agency improperly refused to refer the firm to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a Certificate of Competency (COC). The GAO firmly dismissed this claim, pointing out that it only used the term “nonresponsibility determination” because CSlope itself had explicitly framed the agency’s actions as a “de facto determination of nonresponsibility” in its original protest. The GAO reiterated its core legal conclusion from the prior decision: because the Army did not evaluate past performance on a strict pass/fail or acceptable/unacceptable basis, the agency was not required under SBA regulations to refer CSlope for a COC. Finding no errors of fact or law, the GAO denied the request for reconsideration.

Rice Services, Inc., B-424208, B-424208.2, B-424208.3 - April 10, 2026

Protestor Rice Services, Inc. challenged the Department of the Army’s issuance of an undefinitized contract action (UCA) that modified an existing task order to add dining facility support services at the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point. Rice Services argued that this modification was completely outside the scope of the underlying Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Specifically, the protester contended that providing food services to cadets at West Point did not align with the LOGCAP program’s intended purpose and fell outside the limited pool of authorized end-users.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that the required services were well within the broad scope of the underlying contract. The GAO noted that the LOGCAP contract expressly encompasses a wide range of logistics capabilities, specifically including food services, designed to support the U.S. Army, Joint Forces, and other Department of Defense components. The GAO firmly rejected the protester’s argument regarding the end-users, stating that the contract’s scope of work does not strictly limit to whom the services can be rendered. Ultimately, because the dining facility services directly supported the Army’s responsibility to maintain food operations at West Point, the fact that the primary beneficiaries were cadets rather than active-duty soldiers was deemed irrelevant to the scope analysis.

Technatomy Corp., et al. v. United States, Consol. No. 24-451 - April 7, 2026

In one of the largest consolidated bid protests in recent history, the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of the government and fifteen intervenors, effectively upholding the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) $60.7 billion “T4NG2” IT overhaul. Following an initial remand where the VA corrected evaluation errors that added three new firms—Technatomy, Taurian, and Peregrine—to the awardee pool, seventeen remaining protesters challenged the agency's second award decision. The protesters raised a litany of complaints, ranging from the VA's use of an “on-ramp” provision to its technical interpretation of “advanced software technologies”.

The Court denied the protest across the board, finding that the VA’s determinations were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Key to the ruling was the Court’s high level of deference to the agency’s technical judgment and the protesters’ failure to prove competitive prejudice. The Court found the VA acted rationally by using its “sole discretion” to on-ramp two previously successful offerors who had been mathematically bumped from the top thirty due to agency scoring corrections elsewhere. The Court rejected claims that the VA held unequal discussions, ruling that the agency's requests for binary “yes-or-no” certifications (e.g., regarding accounting system changes) were permissible clarifications that did not allow for material proposal revisions. The Court refused to second-guess the VA’s technical evaluation of “advanced software technologies,” upholding the agency’s requirement that projects be both emerging and a “significant improvement” over prior tech. Even where the Court identified a minor evaluation error (improperly crediting a joint venture for a mentor's independent work) it ruled the error harmless because correcting it would not have vaulted any of the protesters into the awardee pool.

Noblis MSD, LLC v. The United States, No. 25-1637C (Fed. Cl.) - March 25, 2026

This post-award bid protest involves a challenge by Noblis MSD, LLC against the U.S. Navy's decision to award a contract to a competitor, Solute, Inc.. Noblis filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, alleging errors in the Navy’s procurement process, primarily focusing on the agency’s allegedly improper evaluation of Solute's past performance. On the merits, the Court sided partially with the protester. Chief Judge Solomson granted Noblis’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record specifically regarding the claim that the Navy improperly evaluated the awardee’s past performance. The Court denied the remainder of Noblis’s claims, as well as the cross-motions filed by the government and the defendant-intervenor.

Despite succeeding on the merits of the past performance claim, Noblis was denied its requested permanent injunctive relief. The Court noted that Noblis failed to adequately address the “irreparable harm” prong required for an injunction, and therefore refused to halt the contract’s performance or order the Navy to redo the procurement. Instead, the Court limited Noblis’s potential remedy to filing a motion to recover its bid and proposal costs, though the judge explicitly cautioned that he was “far from convinced” Noblis would ultimately be able to demonstrate entitlement to those costs.

Sabrina Dunbar-Brown v. United States, No. 25-1414 (Fed. Cl.) - March 23, 2026

This case involves a suit by Sabrina Dunbar-Brown, the owner of On-Site Childcare Solutions, LLC (OSC), seeking contract damages against the United States. OSC operated as a subcontractor to TechTrans International (TTI), the prime contractor providing event planning services for the Army. After TTI terminated OSC's subcontract for alleged performance violations, Ms. Dunbar-Brown pursued various avenues for relief, including a dismissed Government Accountability Office (GAO) protest, before filing suit in the Court of Federal Claims under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). She sought monetary damages for lost income, lost business opportunities, consequential damages, and emotional distress resulting from the termination.

The Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on several grounds. First, the Court dismissed the claims for emotional distress, mental anguish, and reputational harm because the Tucker Act strictly limits the Court's jurisdiction to cases “not sounding in tort”. Second, the Court found that Ms. Dunbar-Brown lacked privity of contract with the government. As a subcontractor, she could not bring a CDA claim unless she could prove an agency relationship between the prime contractor and the government. The Court ruled she failed to meet the strict legal test for such a relationship, noting that the prime contract explicitly stated the Government did not have privity with subcontractors. Finally, the Court held that even if privity existed, the suit would be dismissed because Ms. Dunbar-Brown failed to satisfy the CDA’s prerequisite of presenting her specific claim for monetary damages to the contracting officer for a final decision before filing her lawsuit.

Steel Point Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 25-cv-1670 (Fed. Cl.) - March 19, 2026

This post-award bid protest involves a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) solicitation for IT Professional Services. After taking voluntary corrective action in response to an earlier GAO protest, the agency added Steel Point to the competitive range but ultimately awarded the Blanket Purchase Agreements to the four originally highest-rated offerors. Steel Point challenged the awards in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the agency relied on improper post hoc rationalizations, evaluated technical quotes disparately, and violated the solicitation by failing to review a missing CPARS past performance report.

The Court denied the protest across the board. First, the Court rejected the post hoc rationalization argument, ruling that an agency circulating unsigned “draft contracts” to awardees does not constitute a final agency action. Because the final awards, the Source Selection Decision, and the Technical Evaluation Report were all executed on the same day, the agency's rationale was properly contemporaneous. Second, the Court dismissed the disparate treatment claims, emphasizing that Steel Point failed to prove its proposed management approach and key personnel resumes were “substantively indistinguishable” from the awardees. The Court noted that individual resumes are inherently unique, giving the agency broad discretion in assigning different ratings. Finally, the Court held the agency was not obligated to track down a missing CPARS report that Steel Point failed to include in its quote, as the solicitation's language regarding the use of outside past performance databases was permissive rather than mandatory.

HII ShipCycle, LLC v. United States, No. 25-1336 (Fed. Cl.) - March 18, 2026

This procurement protest arises from the Department of the Navy's solicitation for the dismantlement and disposal of the former USS Enterprise, the Navy's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. HII ShipCycle, LLC (HII) was eliminated from the competition after submitting its Final Proposal Revision (FPR) late due to technical issues with the Navy's mandatory electronic submission portal (PIEE). Prior to the submission deadline, HII experienced significant system delays and emailed the contracting officer requesting a short extension. The contracting officer failed to respond to the pre-deadline request, subsequently eliminating HII from the competition under the "late is late" rule and awarding the contract to the intervenor, NorthStar. HII filed suit, arguing the Navy's failure to consider the extension request was arbitrary and capricious, particularly given that the procurement was a best-value tradeoff where HII had received the highest possible non-price rating and offered an initial price roughly $100 million lower than NorthStar.

The Court of Federal Claims agreed with HII, finding that the contracting officer's failure to even consider the pre-deadline extension request was arbitrary and capricious. The Court reasoned that an agency must examine relevant factors and "important aspects of the problem" to demonstrate reasoned decision-making. In this case, the contracting officer was fully aware of the massive price disparity, HII's high technical rating, and HII's ongoing IT struggles before the deadline lapsed, yet there was no documented rationale explaining why the extension request was ignored. Because HII was prejudiced by losing a substantial chance at the contract award, the Court granted HII's motion for judgment on the administrative record. The Court enjoined the Navy from commencing performance with NorthStar and remanded the procurement to the agency, ordering the Navy to allow the competitive range offerors to resubmit their FPRs under a new deadline.

AccelGov, LLC v. United States, No. 25-16781 - March 17, 2025

This post-award bid protest arises from a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) solicitation for Cybersecurity Support Services aimed at transitioning the agency to a Managed Cybersecurity Services model. AccelGov, LLC challenged the contract award to Argus Secure Technology LLC after the FCC evaluated AccelGov's proposal as "Low Confidence" under the Management Approach factor. This low rating stemmed from AccelGov proposing an insufficient number of Information System Security Officers (ISSOs), which the agency deemed a "severe underestimation" of necessary resources. AccelGov argued that the FCC improperly weighed this single negative finding against its positive findings, evaluated proposals disparately (noting Argus also had a staffing weakness but retained a "High Confidence" rating), and failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff by not explicitly comparing Argus against lower-priced offerors.

The Court of Federal Claims rejected all of AccelGov’s arguments. First, the Court clarified that adjectival ratings are not mechanically averaged; a severe weakness in one area can reasonably sink an entire evaluation factor, even if subfactors are deemed equally important. Second, the Court found no disparate treatment because the staffing shortages were functionally different: proposing too few ISSOs (who had broad, system-wide monitoring responsibilities) presented a significantly graver risk to the agency than Argus’s weakness of proposing too few Incident Response Analysts. Finally, because the procurement was conducted under FAR Subpart 8.4, the contracting officer had greater flexibility and was not required to explicitly document a tradeoff analysis against every lower-tier offeror once their severe technical weaknesses reasonably eliminated them from contention. The Court denied AccelGov's motion and upheld the award to Argus.

Gateway Development Commission v. United States, No. 26-176C - March 12, 2026

This case involved six grant and loan agreements totaling approximately $14.7 billion between the Gateway Development Commission (GDC) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) to fund the Hudson Tunnel Project. Under the agreements, DOT was required to disburse funds to GDC on a monthly basis upon request. However, on September 30, 2025, DOT abruptly suspended all disbursements in order to review whether GDC’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program complied with federal equal protection principles and Executive Order 14173. DOT ultimately withheld over $205 million across five months. GDC filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging breach of contract, arguing that DOT failed to follow the strict procedural steps mandated by the agreements, such as providing a formal determination of noncompliance, written notice, and an opportunity to cure, before it suspended the funds.

Concurrently, the States of New York and New Jersey secured a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in a separate district court action, which compelled DOT to release the withheld funds. By mid-February 2026, DOT had paid the full $205 million sought by GDC’s primary breach counts. Relying on this payment, the Government moved to dismiss those counts for lack of jurisdiction due to mootness, or alternatively, for failure to state a claim.

The Court found that GDC successfully established a prima facie case for breach of contract, noting that DOT took an improper “ready, fire, aim” approach by bypassing the contractually mandated procedural safeguards before withholding payment. However, because the Tucker Act limits the Court’s jurisdiction primarily to monetary damages, and DOT had already paid the requested $205 million in full under the TRO, the Court held that it could grant no further effectual relief, rendering the claims moot. The Court also dismissed GDC's request for equitable assurances against future fund recoupment as unripe, and alternatively held that the Government’s full payment constituted a complete affirmative defense. Therefore, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the primary breach claims.

Sheela, Inc., No. 25-1498 - March 3, 2026

Sheela Inc.’s bid protest case concerned the Department of the Air Force’s procurement of an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery multiple award construction contract (MACC) at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst, New Jersey. The awards were reserved for offerors receiving a “Substantial Confidence” past performance rating. Protestor Sheela Inc. challenged its “Limited Confidence” rating and subsequent exclusion from the award, arguing that the Air Force unreasonably over-weighed negative Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, improperly discounted an “Exceptional” Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) rating, and evaluated past performance disparately. Sheela also alleged that the evaluation board was biased due to prior negative history with the firm, and that the agency ignored missing cost and business-size information in the successful awardees’ price proposals.

The Court of Federal Claims denied the protest, finding the Air Force’s evaluations rational and consistent with the solicitation. The Court held that the agency reasonably exercised its discretion in weighing Sheela's negative CPARS ratings as a performance risk and properly discounted the “Exceptional” PPQ because it lacked the explanatory comments explicitly required by the solicitation. Furthermore, the Court rejected Sheela’s bias claims, reiterating the presumption that government officials act in good faith, and found that the alleged omissions in the awardees' price proposals were de minimis errors. Ultimately, the Court concluded that these errors did not prejudice Sheela, as its “Limited Confidence” rating rendered the firm ineligible for award regardless of price.

Fire Creek Company, Nos. 25-1654C, 25-1696C, 25-1740C (consolidated) - March 3, 2026

This consolidated bid protest case concerns the General Services Administration’s (GSA) OASIS+ procurement, specifically regarding master contract awards under the 8(a) small business set-aside. The solicitation established a threshold requirement that offerors submit a minimum of two “Qualifying Projects” (QPs) performed by an SBA-certified 8(a) small business concern. Protestors Fire Creek Company and Aleut Management Services submitted QPs performed by affiliated companies that were no longer 8(a) certified at the time of the offer. To justify this, the protestors utilized Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCLs) permitted under a separate section of the solicitation, arguing that their own active 8(a) status as the prime offerors should be imputed back to the affiliates who actually performed the work. The GSA rejected both proposals as unacceptable because the offerors failed to meet the threshold requirement of submitting two QPs from an actively certified 8(a) business.

The Court of Federal Claims denied the protests, holding that the plain language of the solicitation clearly required the entity that actually performed the QP work to be an 8(a) certified business. The Court reasoned that while the solicitation’s MRCL provision allowed offerors to use affiliates’ projects to earn evaluation scoring credits, it did not override the strict threshold eligibility requirement dictating the source of the initial two mandatory QPs. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the protestors’ interpretation of the interplay between the two solicitation sections was deemed reasonable, it would have created a patent ambiguity. Because patent ambiguities trigger a duty to inquire prior to submitting a proposal, the protestors waived their ability to challenge the terms by failing to seek clarification from the agency before the close of bidding.

Government Accountability Office (“GAO”)

ShorePoint, LLC, B-424200.2; B-424200.3 - August 27, 2026

ShorePoint, LLC protested the issuance of an NIH task order to Booz Allen Hamilton for cybersecurity operations services after the agency excluded ShorePoint from award based on a low confidence rating under the past performance factor. ShorePoint argued that the agency improperly folded a corporate experience style analysis of scope and complexity into what should have been a pure quality of performance evaluation, particularly since the firm had already been deemed acceptable under a separate minimum experience factor.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that the solicitation expressly directed the agency to assess whether an offeror's past contracts demonstrated an ability to handle work of similar magnitude and complexity to the task order at hand, making the agency's consideration of scope and scale entirely consistent with the stated criteria. Because the solicitation independently required exclusion of any quotation rated low confidence on any technical capability factor, the GAO also found ShorePoint was not an interested party to challenge the remainder of the evaluation once its past performance rating was upheld.

DAS Federal, LLC, B-424464; B-424464.2; B-424464.3 - August 27, 2026

DAS Federal, LLC protested the issuance of a CMS task order to Precise Federal Contracting LLC for hosting and maintaining the agency's integrated learning management system, arguing that the evaluation of its quotation applied unstated criteria and was otherwise unreasonable. DAS's corporate experience quotation had been dinged for not including a formal risk matrix and for failing to map its proposed metrics to specific performance indicators, even though the solicitation only asked offerors to describe past experience performing similar work rather than to propose a technical solution.

The GAO sustained the protest, agreeing that the challenged weaknesses effectively penalized DAS for doing exactly what the corporate experience instructions asked of it, since nothing in the solicitation put offerors on notice that they needed to propose risk mitigation deliverables or specific metrics in that section of their quotations. The GAO also found the agency's summary narrative evaluation internally inconsistent, since the evaluators credited DAS with numerous strengths explicitly described as benefits to the agency while simultaneously concluding the quotation offered no benefits at all. The GAO recommended a reevaluation, a new tradeoff, and reimbursement of DAS's protest costs.

Hair By Allure, LLC d/b/a Allure Rejuvenation Center, B-424563 - August 27, 2026

Hair By Allure, LLC, doing business as Allure Rejuvenation Center, protested its exclusion from the competitive range under a VA solicitation for orthotic goods and prosthetic supplies, arguing that the agency improperly eliminated its proposal. The VA had removed the firm after discovering its final proposal revision did not include a signed copy of a solicitation amendment that added estimated order quantities and a new requirement tying proposed prices to the offeror's federal supply schedule prices.

The GAO denied the protest, explaining that an offeror's failure to acknowledge a material amendment renders its proposal unacceptable, and finding that the amendment at issue was material because both the new quantity data and the FSS pricing tie-in would have more than a negligible effect on how offerors set their prices. The GAO rejected the protester's argument that a later, narrower amendment superseded the earlier one, noting that the later amendment only updated a single attachment and left the material terms of the first amendment untouched.

Integrity Management Consulting, Inc., B-424490 - August 25, 2026

Integrity Management Consulting, Inc. protested the issuance of a DHS call order to ASET Partners Corporation for geospatial information and technology services, arguing that the agency failed to assess additional strengths to its quotation, disparately evaluated the competing quotations, and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff. The agency had initially selected Integrity for award before a COFC protest prompted corrective action, after which a reevaluation of revised price and staffing quotations led the agency to select ASET's slightly lower priced quotation instead.

The GAO dismissed as untimely Integrity's disparate treatment challenges under the technical approach and experience factors, finding that Integrity had access to the relevant evaluation record from the earlier COFC litigation and waited well past the 10 day deadline to raise the issue. On the merits of the remaining grounds, the GAO found the agency reasonably declined to award additional strengths for staffing based on incumbent status or CPARS ratings that fell outside the stated evaluation criteria, and that the selection official adequately documented why the two quotations were technically equal before choosing the lower priced one as the best value.

Phoenix International Holdings, Inc., B-424348.2 - August 24, 2026

Phoenix International Holdings, Inc. protested a Navy contract modification extending Oceaneering International's submarine rescue operations and maintenance contract by 18 months on a sole-source basis, arguing that the agency unreasonably found the incumbent to be the only responsible source capable of meeting the Navy's interim needs. Phoenix submitted a capability statement proposing to take over the work, but the agency rejected it because Phoenix lacked the required NAVSEA certification for the submarine rescue system and had not demonstrated it could secure qualified personnel within the necessary timeframe.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency's justification and approval reasonable given the mission critical nature of the submarine rescue system, which had only recently been recertified after a lengthy suspension and was the Navy's only worldwide deployable rescue asset while a NATO backup system underwent its own maintenance overhaul. The GAO agreed that requiring Phoenix to obtain full certification, and to staff qualified watch station personnel who can only train while a vessel is deployed at sea, would create unacceptable delay risk, and that the agency reasonably decided not to spend the time and money to certify a new contractor given its plans to eliminate the certification requirement once the system transitions to a commercial classification standard.

LJR Solutions, LLC, B-424487 - August 24, 2026

LJR Solutions, LLC, a small business, protested the terms of an NIH request for proposals for professional, scientific, and technical services, arguing that the procurement should have been set aside for small businesses rather than conducted on a full and open basis with a small business reserve. This was the second time NIH had approached this requirement after taking corrective action on an earlier solicitation, and the agency's 2024 market research had actually identified three small businesses capable of performing the work before the contracting officer later concluded, without adequately explaining the shift, that none were capable of handling the full scope of the requirement.

The GAO sustained the protest, finding the agency's rule of two analysis unreasonable and internally inconsistent. The GAO noted that the agency faulted small businesses for being unable to independently perform the entire requirement even though the agency believed no firm, large or small, could do so without subcontracting, and the solicitation itself contemplated the use of subcontractors. The GAO also found that the agency never documented whether a partial set-aside was feasible before defaulting to a small business reserve, and recommended that NIH redo its set-aside determination, conducting new market research if appropriate, and reimburse LJR's protest costs.

Ideal Innovations, Inc., B-423954.2 - August 20, 2026

Ideal Innovations, Inc. (I-3) protested the Army’s issuance of a task order to Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation for biometrics operations support, alleging that the awardee was tainted by disqualifying personal and organizational conflicts of interest arising from a familial relationship between the incumbent contracting officer’s representative and his son, who worked for the awardee’s proposed subcontractor. I-3 also challenged the agency’s technical evaluation of its own proposal.

GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency’s investigation into the alleged conflicts was reasonable and well-documented. The contracting officer obtained declarations establishing that the COR did not know his son’s employer was involved in the procurement until after the award decision was made, never discussed the procurement with his son, and recused himself immediately upon learning of the connection, undercutting both the unequal access to information and biased ground rules theories. GAO also rejected I-3’s argument that a separate contract performed by the awardee’s subcontractor created an unequal access to information conflict, since the tasks performed under that contract were administrative in nature and did not provide insight into I-3’s incumbent pricing or performance. Finally, GAO upheld the technical evaluation, finding that the agency reasonably declined to assess significant strengths for proposal elements that merely met, rather than exceeded, the PWS requirements, and that the evaluators’ post-protest explanations were credible and consistent with the contemporaneous record.

Potomac Valor Healthcare-2, LLC, B-423195.2; B-423195.3 - August 18, 2026

Potomac Valor Healthcare-2, LLC (PVH2), a joint venture, protested the Department of Veterans Affairs’ determination that it was ineligible for award of an outpatient clinic services contract because it no longer qualified as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business at the time of award, after its managing joint venture partner was acquired by a large business. PVH2 argued that SDVOSB eligibility for joint ventures should be assessed only at the time of proposal submission, not at the time of award, based on its reading of the interplay between VAAR clause 852.219-73 and VAAR section 819.7003.

GAO denied the protest, finding that the two regulatory provisions were intertwined rather than establishing separate standards for joint ventures, and that both unambiguously required SDVOSB status at both the time of offer and the time of award. GAO also found that the VA’s Veterans First Program regulations are not subordinate to the Small Business Administration’s more general regulations, even where SBA disagreed with the VA’s interpretation in comments submitted to GAO. Finally, GAO dismissed PVH2’s remaining challenges to the agency’s evaluation and tradeoff decision because, having been properly found ineligible for award, PVH2 was not an interested party to pursue them, and its theory of possibly restructuring the joint venture to revive its eligibility in a hypothetical resolicitation was too speculative to confer standing.

Davos Francois, B-424592 - August 18, 2026

Davos Francois protested the terms of a Department of State solicitation for a senior police advisor in Haiti, arguing that the agency unreasonably broadened the minimum experience qualifications to include military experience, unreasonably removed a Haitian Creole language preference from the evaluation criteria, and issued the solicitation in bad faith to steer the award to a particular candidate. Francois also challenged the scope of the agency’s corrective action following a prior protest.

GAO denied the protest in full. It dismissed the challenge to the broadened minimum qualifications because GAO’s bid protest function exists to promote full and open competition, and it will not entertain a protest seeking more restrictive terms; in any event, the agency reasonably tied the military experience pathway to Haiti’s security needs. GAO also found that removing the Creole language preference was reasonable because the agency demonstrated that everyone the advisor would interact with in his primary duties spoke English, and that translators would be available otherwise. As for bad faith, GAO found that an unauthenticated phone transcript and other circumstantial allegations fell far short of the clear and convincing evidence required to overcome the presumption that government officials act in good faith, particularly where directly contradicted by a sworn declaration from the agency official accused of rigging the competition.

Wepa Commercial Cleaning, LLC, B-424129.2 - August 18, 2026

Wepa Commercial Cleaning, LLC, an SDVOSB, protested the Department of Veterans Affairs’ award of a custodial services contract to Salmon Group, Inc. following corrective action, challenging both the sufficiency of the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision and the reasonableness of the corrective action itself. Wepa argued that its lower price and higher past performance rating should have outweighed the awardee’s technical advantage, and that the agency failed to adequately explain why Salmon Group’s proposal justified a price premium.

GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonably documented, noting that the agency specifically identified weaknesses in Wepa’s proposal for omitting or providing insufficient detail on several PWS tasks, while crediting Salmon Group’s proposal for delivering measurable, risk-reducing benefits at a healthcare facility. GAO also rejected Wepa’s argument that the corrective action was not meaningful simply because it resulted in the same award decision, explaining that there is generally no requirement that an agency reconcile a later evaluation with an earlier one, and that the relevant question is whether the final evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.

Oready, LLC, B-424540 - August 14, 2026

Oready, LLC protested the terms of a Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education solicitation for speech therapy services, arguing that the requirement for quotations to include a signed letter of commitment from the proposed speech therapist was unduly restrictive of competition. Oready contended that a letter of commitment from the employer, rather than the individual key person, should suffice, and separately argued that the requirement was ambiguous because it did not define what constitutes approval by the agency.

GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency reasonably justified the letter of commitment requirement by explaining that letters from employers had not reliably ensured that proposed individuals were actually aware of or willing to perform the remote, part-time work, leading to past staffing gaps and compliance issues under the Disabilities Education Act. GAO reiterated that each procurement stands on its own, so the agency’s past acceptance of employer letters did not undermine its current justification. GAO also rejected the ambiguity argument, finding that the solicitation, read as a whole, clearly tied approval to the background screening process rather than any other post-award procedure.

Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc., B-424429 - August 13, 2026

Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc. protested the General Services Administration’s decision not to solicit the firm for a request for quotations covering complete facilities maintenance services at multiple federal buildings in Nebraska. The protester argued that GSA improperly limited the RFQ to a select group of vendors and refused to provide Wilson 5 with a copy of the solicitation after it asked for one.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency conducted the procurement consistent with the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul’s ordering procedures for the Federal Supply Schedule. The GAO explained that the RFO eliminated the prior FAR requirement obligating agencies to provide an RFQ to any schedule contractor that requests a copy, and that the applicable GSAR provision only requires an agency to solicit as many contractors as practicable to reasonably ensure quotations from at least three vendors. Because GSA solicited 16 of the 41 interested vendors using small business status, schedule holdings, and CPARS performance thresholds, and reasonably expected to receive at least three quotations, the agency’s approach satisfied the practicability standard.

Intelligence Consulting Enterprise Solutions, Inc., B-424433.3; B-424433.7 - August 12, 2026

Intelligence Consulting Enterprise Solutions, Inc. (ICES) protested the terms of an Army solicitation establishing a marketplace for professional services intended to combine two existing multiple-award IDIQ contract vehicles into a single procurement with up to 350 planned awards. ICES challenged the agency’s solicitation numbering method and manner of posting amendments, the prohibition on using classified contracts as past performance references, the sufficiency of the agency’s responses to pre-proposal questions, and a prohibition on small business offerors forming teaming arrangements.

The GAO denied most of ICES’s challenges. The GAO found no prejudice from the agency’s solicitation numbering convention because ICES had actual knowledge of every amendment, and concluded that the prohibition on classified past performance references was rational given the rarity of classified work under the predecessor contracts and the security burdens of accepting classified submissions. The GAO also found the solicitation was not ambiguous regarding NAICS code alignment or past performance quality scoring.

The GAO sustained ICES’s challenge to the solicitation’s ban on small business prime/subcontractor teaming arrangements. The GAO concluded that the Small Business Act’s teaming and joint venture provisions vest the choice of formation with the small business offeror, not the agency, and that the Army’s interpretation permitting only joint ventures undercut the statute’s purpose of maximizing small business participation in consolidated procurements. The GAO recommended the agency amend the solicitation to permit small business teaming, reopen the competition, and reimburse ICES’s protest costs.

DCS Corporation, B-423820.6 - August 11, 2026

DCS Corporation challenged the scope of corrective action the Army proposed after DCS’s most recent protest of a task order award to Amentum Services, Inc. under the Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services IDIQ contract. This marked the third round of award decisions and protests in the procurement, with the latest corrective action triggered by DCS’s discovery that one of Amentum’s claimed small business subcontractors was actually a large business. DCS argued the agency’s decision to limit reopened discussions to the small business participation and cost/price volumes was tailored solely to preserve Amentum’s award and improperly ignored DCS’s earlier, unresolved technical evaluation challenges.

The GAO denied the challenge to the scope of corrective action, finding it reasonably tailored to the ambiguity in the solicitation’s small business participation requirements that had already disqualified three of four competitors, rather than aimed at benefiting any single offeror. The GAO rejected DCS’s bad faith argument, including its reliance on an internal agency email referencing a transition to Amentum’s contract, after the agency produced a sworn declaration explaining the statement as an isolated misstatement by someone uninvolved in the corrective action decision. The GAO also found the agency was not obligated to reopen discussions on DCS’s oral presentation, since the record showed DCS’s proposal had no assigned weaknesses, and dismissed as premature DCS’s separate challenge to the agency’s refusal to revisit its prior technical evaluation.

Veros Real Estate Solutions, LLC, B-423965.2, B-423965.3, B-423965.4 - August 6, 2026

Veros Real Estate Solutions, LLC protested the Department of Veterans Affairs' award of a loan appraisal services contract to Lynch Consultants, LLC, an SDVOSB, challenging the evaluation of Lynch's past performance, alleging disparate treatment under the technical factor, and arguing that Lynch's proposal materially misrepresented the role of its major subcontractor, Cotality. The solicitation contemplated a best-value tradeoff among technical, past performance, and price factors, and neither offeror submitted the required past performance questionnaires, so the VA instead relied on CPARS reports it independently pulled for each firm, considering two for Veros and four for the Lynch team.

GAO sustained the protest as to past performance, finding that the VA credited Lynch with work its CPARS reports showed was actually performed by the client agency's own program office, and that the agency never explained how the cited contracts were relevant to the specific PWS sections at issue. Because the source selection authority had treated the two offerors as equivalent technically and on past performance before turning to price as the deciding factor, the flawed relevance findings undermined the entire tradeoff. GAO denied the disparate treatment claims, finding the differing strength assessments stemmed from genuine differences in the proposals, and denied the material misrepresentation argument, concluding that inconsistencies between Lynch's proposal and its later representations to the SBA in a small business size protest were not evidence that Lynch lacked intent to perform as proposed. GAO recommended a new past performance evaluation and reimbursement of Veros's protest costs.

ProteQ, B-424419.2 - August 6, 2026

ProteQ protested the Navy's issuance of a Seaport-Next Generation task order to Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. for professional, administrative, engineering, and technical support services, arguing that the agency improperly found its proposal ineligible for award under a pass/fail contract documentation factor and unreasonably declined to permit clarifications to fix the omissions. The agency had assigned ProteQ's proposal a “fail” rating for three separate reasons, including its failure to submit a corporate policy for resolving organizational conflicts of interest, and because of that rating declined to evaluate the rest of ProteQ's proposal at all.

GAO denied the protest, finding that the RFP's evaluation criteria, read as a whole, plainly provided that any proposal missing required contract documentation information, including an offeror's corporate policy for resolving organizational conflicts of interest, would be deemed ineligible for award. Because ProteQ's proposal omitted that policy, the agency reasonably rejected it regardless of the other two omissions ProteQ also disputed. GAO further held that curing the omission would have required a material proposal revision amounting to discussions rather than mere clarifications, and since the solicitation reserved the agency's right to award without discussions, the Navy had no obligation to give ProteQ a chance to fix the deficiency.

MAGPRO Alliance, JV, B-424328.2 - August 5, 2026

MAGPRO Alliance, JV challenged the terms of a Navy Facilities Engineering Command solicitation for custodial services at installations in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, arguing that the corporate experience factor's requirement that offerors submit projects valued at $6.5 million or more per year unduly restricted competition among eligible 8(a) firms. The size threshold had already been lowered once from $8 million per year in response to an earlier pre-award protest by a different firm, but MAGPRO filed both an agency-level protest and, after the agency declined to act, this GAO protest arguing the reduced figure was still too high.

GAO denied the protest, finding that the Navy had a reasonable basis for the project size threshold, having considered the total square footage to be cleaned across eight dispersed locations, the specialized access requirements at each site, the historical contract value adjusted for cost increases, and the independent government cost estimate. GAO rejected MAGPRO's argument that the agency was required to base the size requirement on its market research, explaining that while FAR part 10 requires agencies to use market research to determine whether capable offerors exist, no regulation requires an agency to derive its underlying requirements from that research in the first place.

Core Government Services Corporation, B-424491 - August 3, 2026

Core Government Services Corporation protested the VA's award of a commercial call center staffing services contract to Encore JV1, LLC, arguing that the agency misevaluated its experience and improperly eliminated its proposal from further consideration without also finding it technically unacceptable. Core's proposal offered three experience references, one performed by Core itself and two performed by its proposed subcontractor, and the agency found each of them fell meaningfully short of the roughly 1.6 million annual calls and 312 agents required to staff the VA's veteran-facing hotline.

GAO denied the protest, holding that the VA reasonably assessed each of Core's three experience references individually and found meaningful gaps in call volume, staffing levels, sensitivity of the population served, and performance metrics compared to the VEOCC requirement, rejecting Core's argument that its references should have been aggregated together. GAO also rejected Core's challenge to its elimination, finding that the solicitation expressly reserved the agency's right to cease further evaluation and remove any offeror rated low confidence under any non-price factor, meaning the VA did not need to separately find Core's proposal technically unacceptable before excluding it from the competition.

Ardmore Consulting Group, Inc., B-423916.2, B-423916.3 - August 4, 2026

Ardmore Consulting Group, Inc. protested the Department of Homeland Security's award of a uniform and equipment issuance and laundry services contract to T47 International, Inc., arguing that the agency's post-amendment communications with offerors constituted undisclosed discussions, that its price proposal was misevaluated, and that the resulting best-value tradeoff was flawed. The dispute arose after a revised Department of Labor wage determination prompted the agency to amend the solicitation and ask all offerors to confirm whether the change affected their pricing, at which point Ardmore also submitted a teaming agreement and updated Excel pricing workbook in response to the agency's request.

GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part. The agency's request that Ardmore confirm its teaming arrangement and update pricing to reflect a revised wage determination did not constitute discussions, since the exchange did not involve bargaining or an invitation to revise the substance of the proposal. GAO also found the agency reasonably rejected Ardmore's price proposal as unacceptable because it omitted required cost breakdown elements, including overhead and other direct costs, despite an explicit solicitation warning that noncompliance could render a proposal unacceptable. Because Ardmore's price proposal was properly found unacceptable, GAO concluded Ardmore was no longer an interested party to challenge the remaining evaluation and tradeoff issues, and dismissed those grounds.

Abacus Technology Corporation-Costs, B-423607.6, B-423607.13 - August 4, 2026

Abacus Technology Corporation requested reimbursement of protest costs after the Air Force twice took corrective action in response to challenges to its issuance of a NOSC IT support task order to SMS Data Products Group, Inc., arguing that its allegations were clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed correcting the errors. Abacus's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal lost the award to SMS after the agency conducted a price realism comparison against historical incumbent contract data, a comparison Abacus argued was skewed by the agency's own math.

GAO granted the request in part, finding that Abacus's challenges to the agency's price realism analysis and best-value tradeoff were clearly meritorious. The agency's realism calculation used the incumbent's originally proposed staffing level, rather than the smaller number of personnel actually used to perform the work, to derive an artificially low benchmark cost of performance, and the source selection authority's tradeoff decision relied solely on adjectival ratings without meaningfully engaging with the vast difference between the offerors' staffing plans. GAO denied reimbursement for Abacus's challenge to the evaluation of the awardee's incumbent capture plan, finding that argument was, in substance, an improper request for a price realism analysis the solicitation did not require, and that this losing ground was severable from the meritorious issues.

The JAAW Group, LLC, B-424433.22 - August 3, 2026

The JAAW Group, LLC, managing member of joint venture Paralaxx LLC, protested the rejection of Paralaxx's proposal under an Army solicitation for a multiple-award professional services marketplace, alleging that the solicitation's file naming conventions conflicted with those enforced by the agency's submission portal, causing the portal to repeatedly reject its proposal. This was JAAW's second protest over portal problems with this procurement, following an earlier protest in May that the agency resolved through corrective action by fixing the portal and extending the proposal deadline to June 22.

GAO dismissed the protest, finding that the alleged inconsistency did not exist. The screenshots JAAW submitted with its own protest showed that the portal's error messages required the exact same file naming format specified in the solicitation, and that JAAW's own submission attempts used file names that failed to follow those instructions in several different ways, including misspelling the joint venture's name and leaving placeholder text in the file name. Because the protest rested on factually inaccurate assertions, GAO dismissed it for failing to state a legally sufficient basis for protest, and separately noted, without imposing sanctions, that the protest included citations to nonexistent and irrelevant case law consistent with unverified AI-generated content.

Serco Inc., B-424352, B-424352.2 - August 31, 2026

Serco, Inc. protested the Army's award of a Mission Command Training Program support services contract to Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., arguing that Booz Allen's hiring of a former Army officer who had commanded the MCTP's opposing forces division gave it an unfair competitive advantage, and separately challenging the agency's technical evaluation. Serco, which had recently acquired the incumbent contractor's operations and continued performing the contract under its own name, argued the former officer had access to confidential staffing approaches, proprietary IT tools, and performance reviews from his years overseeing the incumbent work.

GAO denied the protest, finding that the contracting officer conducted a thorough investigation, including interviews with the former government employee and current MCTP staff, and reasonably concluded that his prior operational role did not give him access to proprietary or source-selection-sensitive information about Serco's contract performance. GAO also denied Serco's technical challenges, finding the agency reasonably declined to credit Serco's advanced shipping and terrain database proposals as strengths because Serco failed to show those approaches would provide the government a considerable advantage, and reasonably credited Booz Allen with a strength for its independently recognized cybersecurity experience since nothing in the solicitation barred consideration of demonstrated experience under the technical factor.

CVJV LLC, B-424437; B-424437.2 - July 22, 2026

CVJV, a small business awaiting word on a Natick Soldier Systems Center construction contract, protested after the Army excluded its proposal for having expired. The Army had asked CVJV to extend its proposal acceptance period by 60 days and gave the firm a response deadline, but CVJV's email agreeing to the extension never reached the contracting officer's inbox, even though it made it to the Army's mail gateway. An investigation involving the Defense Information Systems Agency traced the email to a misspelled address for the contracting specialist and a bounce that produced no notification.

GAO denied the protest, reiterating that the burden of ensuring an agency actually receives an extension request falls on the offeror, not the agency. Because CVJV could not show the contracting officer received its email before the deadline, and because it took no other action that might have signaled its intent to stay in the competition, GAO found the Army reasonably treated CVJV's proposal as expired and properly declined to solicit a final proposal revision from a firm no longer in contention.

Goldbelt Nighthawk, LLC, B-424412 - July 22, 2026

Goldbelt protested the Bureau of Indian Affairs' issuance of an IT support task order to CyberStar, arguing its proposal deserved higher confidence ratings, that the agency treated similarly situated proposals unequally, and that CyberStar had an unmitigated conflict of interest stemming from its work on a separate BIA contract involving IT budget planning. GAO denied the technical and disparate treatment arguments, finding that Goldbelt's proposal had genuine documented weaknesses, including gaps in its training and retention plan, that justified a "confident" rather than "high confidence" rating, and that the two firms' proposals were not so similar that different ratings amounted to unequal treatment.

On the conflict of interest issue, GAO dismissed the claim as academic. After a GAO attorney raised concerns about the agency's initial OCI investigation during a conference call with the parties, the BIA's head of contracting activity executed a written waiver of the alleged conflict under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul's conflict of interest provisions. Because the protester did not dispute that the waiver met the FAR's formal requirements, GAO found the issue mooted by the agency's own corrective step.

J Caye Premier Dining, Inc., B-424443 - July 22, 2026

J Caye challenged an Air Force solicitation for mess attendant services at Tyndall Air Force Base, arguing the agency wrongly included a Randolph-Sheppard Act priority for the state licensing agency because the contractor would not actually "operate" the dining facility. The solicitation kept full operational and management control with the Air Force, and J Caye pointed to language stating the contractor would never exercise operational control, along with GAO's own precedent in JW Mills, where a similar priority was found improper because the contractor's duties were merely ancillary to food service.

GAO denied the protest, distinguishing this case from JW Mills on the scope of the work itself. Here, the contractor would prepare cold food items, cook pasta, boil eggs, and could be called on to provide cooks during a contingency, tasks GAO found central to food preparation rather than merely supportive of it. Citing Fifth and Ninth Circuit decisions adopting a broad reading of what counts as "operation" of a cafeteria under the Act, along with the Department of Education's own view that the priority applied here, GAO concluded the Air Force reasonably determined that a mess facility could not function without the services being procured.

SPARC JV, LLC, B-424400 - July 21, 2026

SPARC challenged a Navy solicitation for pilot and aircrew courseware services, arguing a requirement that offerors show experience directly managing five or more employees subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards simultaneously was unduly restrictive. This was actually SPARC's second run at the issue. An earlier protest against a ten-employee version of the same requirement led the Navy to take corrective action and cut the threshold to five, at which point SPARC filed again, arguing even the reduced number bore no rational relationship to the agency's needs.

GAO denied the protest. The Navy had traced its five-employee minimum to the smallest task order under the incumbent contract, then documented, with specific citations to staffing problems on that prior contract including a botched collective bargaining negotiation and high turnover, why managing a workforce of that size demands administrative systems that smaller-scale experience does not necessarily produce. GAO found the agency's reliance on historical performance data reasonable and rejected SPARC's argument that the requirement duplicated other experience criteria, since magnitude and complexity ratings do not by themselves capture a firm's experience managing a labor-standards-covered workforce.

AOC Applied Solutions, LLC, B-424403 - July 21, 2026

AOC protested its elimination from a Navy SeaPort NxG task order competition for engineering services after the agency rejected its proposal for omitting a required contract data requirements list, or CDRL, from its contract documentation volume. AOC argued the missing form should have been waived as a minor informality since the same underlying pricing information appeared in its cost proposal volume, an argument that had already succeeded once in this procurement when the agency agreed to waive AOC's separate failure to include a fee table on identical reasoning.

GAO denied the protest, finding the two omissions were not actually parallel. While the fee table information was fully duplicated elsewhere in AOC's proposal, the CDRL required both a price group designation and an estimated price for each data item, and AOC's cost volume included only the latter. Because the solicitation gave the agency discretion, not an obligation, to waive documentation defects, and because the missing information was not fully available elsewhere in the proposal, GAO found the Navy acted within its rights in declining to overlook the omission.

ProSource360 Consulting Services, Inc., B-424386 - July 21, 2026

ProSource360 challenged an Army solicitation for materiel fielding and medical liaison support services after learning, following an unsuccessful large-business bid, that the requirement had actually been set aside for small businesses. The SAM.gov synopsis had left the set-aside designation blank, which ProSource argued deprived it of the chance to find and compete for the opportunity, even though the solicitation itself incorporated the standard small business set-aside clause.

GAO dismissed the protest as untimely. Because SAM.gov serves as the government's point of entry for procurement announcements, protesters are charged with constructive notice of everything posted there regardless of whether they actually saw it, and that presumption cannot be rebutted by a claim of ignorance. GAO also noted that a blank synopsis field is not the same as an affirmative statement that no set-aside applied, so ProSource could not reasonably claim it was misled into believing the opportunity was closed to it. The same reasoning doomed ProSource's separate, untimely challenge to the Army's use of an allegedly improper solicitation form.

Pacific Ohana Laulima, LLC, B-424314; B-424314.3 - July 15, 2026 

Pacific Ohana Laulima protested its exclusion from the second phase of an Army Corps of Engineers competition for construction services at military fuel facilities, arguing the agency evaluated its past performance and technical approach too stingily during phase one. The firm believed all four of its past performance references warranted higher relevance ratings and that its technical proposal deserved six strengths instead of two, which together should have lifted it into the pool of finalists.

GAO denied the protest. The record showed the agency had carefully worked through each reference against the solicitation’s specialized work requirements, and where Pacific’s fourth project read more like a blast-structure job than a fuels project, downgrading it to somewhat relevant was a defensible call rather than an oversight. On the technical strengths, GAO reiterated that disagreement over how many strengths got tallied, without more, doesn’t undercut an evaluation that otherwise rests on a reasonable and well-documented assessment of the proposal’s substance.

Sea Box, Inc., B-424332 - July 14, 2026

Sea Box challenged a Defense Logistics Agency solicitation for shipping containers, arguing the agency’s market research was outdated and its method for deciding which contract line items to set aside for small businesses was irrational. The two CLINs left unrestricted happened to account for roughly 70 percent of the $304 million procurement’s value, and Sea Box wanted each CLIN assessed against small business production capacity on its own rather than through the agency’s running subtraction across CLINs.

GAO denied the protest after a hearing. It found nothing wrong with research that spanned from a 2024 sources-sought notice through discussions with vendors into early 2025, particularly for an acquisition this large and complex, and noted the agency reasonably relied on companies' actual production capacity rather than their stated plans to expand it later. On the methodology dispute, the GAO agreed that treating each CLIN as its own island would have ignored the very real possibility that one small business could win multiple CLINs and need to fill them simultaneously, so the agency's cumulative approach fell within the contracting officer's discretion rather than outside it. 

American Correctional Healthcare, Inc., B-424391 - July 14, 2026 

American Correctional Healthcare, the incumbent providing medical services at FCI Cumberland, challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ choice of a Medicare reimbursement rate for rural West Virginia as the pricing benchmark for offerors’ proposals. The protester argued that since it performed 90 percent of its work through Maryland hospitals, which use an entirely different rate-setting formula, tying pricing to West Virginia rates made no sense and exposed offerors to needless risk.

GAO denied the protest. The agency had switched away from a Maryland benchmark specifically because Maryland’s idiosyncratic reimbursement formula would complicate its own price analysis, and Cumberland’s location on the West Virginia border meant hospitals in that state were a reasonable reference point. More importantly, the solicitation made clear the benchmark was purely a comparison tool and didn’t constrain how offerors actually priced their proposals, so American Correctional Healthcare couldn’t show it suffered any real competitive disadvantage from the agency’s choice.

Tyonek Technical Innovations, LLC, B-424364; B-424364.2 - July 14, 2026

Tyonek protested the terms of an Air Force solicitation for cyber operations training support, arguing the agency’s approach to evaluating affiliate past performance conflicted with a DFARS provision requiring agencies to consider the past performance of a small business’s affiliates. Tyonek also challenged the agency’s evaluation of its own submitted past performance, which had come back as only satisfactory confidence.

GAO dismissed both grounds. The solicitation had said all along that affiliate past performance would only be considered if the offeror showed the affiliate would perform significant and critical aspects of the contract, so any conflict with the DFARS provision was apparent on the face of the solicitation and had to be raised before proposals were due. Tyonek waited until after discussions to object, making the challenge untimely. As for the past performance rating itself, the agency hadn’t yet made an award decision, so any dispute over Tyonek’s rating was premature: GAO doesn’t referee evaluation judgments while the offeror is still in the running.

Salience Technologies, LLC, B-424321 - July 13, 2026

Salience Technologies challenged the Air Force’s issuance of a task order to Concept Plus, LLC for support services on the REMIS maintenance system, arguing the agency failed to credit multiple strengths in its proposal and botched the resulting best-value tradeoff. Salience pointed to its proposed acceleration of deployment cycles and its staffing approach as deserving of strength assessments that would have pushed its rating above acceptable.

GAO denied the protest. The agency reasonably found that accelerating deployment cycles was simply the expected outcome of the automation the solicitation already required, not something that exceeded it, and that Salience’s staffing approach reflected industry-standard team sizes rather than any unique advantage. On the tradeoff argument, GAO dismissed that ground entirely: a third offeror had submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, and Salience’s proposal was rated no higher than that offeror’s. Since Salience wasn’t in line for award even if its complaints were valid, it didn’t qualify as an interested party to challenge the tradeoff at all.

Absolute Strategic Technologies, LLC, B-424321.2,B-424321.3 - July 13, 2026

Absolute Strategic Technologies (AST) protested the Air Force’s issuance of a task order to Concept Plus for support services on the REMIS maintenance data system. AST argued its own proposal deserved additional strengths for its subcontractor’s incumbent status, that the agency should have conducted a price realism analysis on fixed-price CLINs, that Concept Plus’s costs and staffing approach were improperly rated, and that the resulting best-value tradeoff was flawed.

GAO denied the protest across the board. Incumbency alone does not entitle an offeror to extra credit, and AST’s general references to automation and stakeholder engagement did not describe anything beyond standard practice. The solicitation referenced only cost realism for the cost-reimbursement CLINs and never suggested low fixed prices could sink a proposal, so no price realism analysis was required. GAO also found the agency’s cost realism analysis of Concept Plus’s proposal, benchmarked against independent labor rate data and cross-checked with the technical team, was reasonable, and that Concept Plus’s dedicated technical debt team was substantively different from AST’s approach, which remained subject to competing program priorities. With the underlying evaluation challenges rejected, the tradeoff decision itself stood.

Crowley Government Services, Inc., B-424373 - July 10, 2026

In a pre-award protest, Crowley Government Services, Inc. challenged the terms of a Navy solicitation for a vessel construction manager (VCM) to procure up to eight medium landing ships. Crowley argued that the RFP placed unreasonable risk on offerors by requiring the VCM to negotiate subcontracts with directed source shipyards, that the terms departed from customary commercial practice, and that the agency gave offerors too little time to prepare proposals given the complexity of the requirement.

GAO denied the protest on all three grounds. The solicitation’s directed source structure did impose risk, but GAO found that risk was mitigated by clauses allowing the VCM to seek relief if a shipyard refused to negotiate in good faith, and by provisions limiting the VCM’s liability for a subcontractor’s default. On the commercial practice argument, the Navy had executed a valid waiver under FAR 12.302(c) explaining why directed subcontracting was necessary, including the need to preserve a shipyard’s role in the industrial base after the cancellation of the Constellation-class frigate program. Finally, GAO found that the 76 days between solicitation issuance and the proposal deadline, on top of advance notice offerors received at an industry day months earlier, gave them a fair chance to put together a competitive proposal.

Veterans Management Services, Inc., B-424182.2; B-424182.3 - July 10, 2026

Veterans Management Services, Inc. protested the VA’s award of an acquisition support services contract to Dynamic Management Associates, arguing that the agency’s past performance evaluation departed from the terms of the solicitation. The RFQ stated that experience within the past three years “may be viewed more favorably” than older experience, but the contracting officer instead excluded any CPARS data older than three years from consideration entirely.

GAO sustained this ground, finding that treating older experience as irrelevant rather than merely less favorable read language out of the solicitation and could not be squared with its plain terms. Because past performance and price were equally weighted in the tradeoff, and because the protester’s excluded references were largely rated exceptional, GAO found a reasonable possibility that a proper evaluation would have improved VMSI’s standing. GAO did deny a separate challenge to the awardee’s quotation over a scrivener’s error in its proposed period of performance, since the protester never explained how it would have revised its own pricing had it known the error would be overlooked. GAO recommended a new past performance evaluation and reimbursement of the protester’s costs.

Hudson Technologies Company, B-424395; B-424395.2; B-424395.3 - July 10, 2026

Hudson Technologies Company protested the Defense Logistics Agency’s award of a contract for hydrofluorocarbon gases to RGAS LLC, arguing that the agency should not have relied on RGAS’s certification that it would supply domestic end products and that RGAS’s past performance should not have been rated acceptable. Hudson pointed to RGAS’s own prior protest referencing foreign-made cylinders and claimed one of the gases could not be sourced domestically at RGAS’s offered price.

GAO denied both grounds. The end product at issue was the gas itself, not the cylinders used to store it, and Hudson’s evidence about foreign sourcing concerned only the containers. On the underlying gas, GAO found nothing in the record suggesting the agency had reason to question RGAS’s certification, particularly where RGAS had provided a detailed narrative on its refrigerant sourcing and reconfirmed domestic production before the reevaluation. On past performance, GAO found the agency's reliance on Supplier Performance Risk System scores, which folded in price, item, and supplier risk data across multiple factors, was consistent with a solicitation that gave the agency broad discretion in how to use that system.

INDUS Technology, Inc., B-424002; B-424002.2 - July 9, 2026

INDUS, the incumbent contractor, protested its elimination from a Navy task order competition for maintenance and engineering support services after the agency found its proposal fell short of the solicitation’s requirement to direct at least 30 percent of the task order’s value to small business subcontractors. INDUS argued the agency wrongly excluded its proposed pass-through rate, an indirect cost markup, from that calculation, and that including it would have pushed INDUS over the threshold.

GAO denied the protest, agreeing with the agency that pass-through amounts are retained by the prime contractor and never actually reach the small business subcontractors, so excluding them from a calculation meant to measure what’s provided to small businesses was reasonable. Because the small business factor was evaluated on a strict pass/fail basis, INDUS’s shortfall alone was enough to eliminate it from the competition, and GAO didn’t need to reach INDUS’s separate argument about its pass-through rate exceeding the solicitation’s 8 percent cap.

GSINA-Pacific JV II, LLC, B-424314.2 - July 8, 2026

GSI protested its exclusion from the second phase of the Army Corps of Engineers’ fuel infrastructure construction contract competition, arguing the agency undervalued its past performance references and gave it an unfairly low confidence rating compared to competitors with similar performance histories. GSI also argued its technical proposal should have scored higher than “acceptable.”

GAO denied the protest. It found the agency reasonably determined that three of GSI’s four past performance references demonstrated only one of the solicitation’s specialized work requirements, despite GSI’s insistence that broader project titles and descriptions should have earned credit for more. GAO also rejected GSI’s disparate treatment protest, finding meaningful differences between GSI’s and its competitors’ underlying project records rather than the near-identical circumstances required to prove unequal treatment. Several of GSI’s arguments about unacknowledged strengths were dismissed outright as improper piecemeal protest development, raised only after the agency report rather than in the initial protest.

The NORDAM Group, LLC, B-424390 - July 8, 2026

NORDAM protested the Navy’s decision to make a single IDIQ award to Vertex, rather than multiple awards, for repair of SUU-79 aircraft pylons, and separately argued the agency’s discussions were misleading and its evaluation of Vertex’s small business participation was too mechanical. NORDAM’s proposal had been rated unacceptable under the small business factor because it fell short of the required 15 percent participation threshold, a calculation NORDAM insisted the agency never clearly explained.

GAO dismissed the single-award challenge as an untimely attack on solicitation terms that plainly reserved the agency’s right to make one award. On discussions, GAO found the agency told NORDAM twice, in nearly identical language, that its small business percentage fell short of 15 percent of total contract value, and that NORDAM’s own math simply used the wrong denominator by calculating against subcontracting dollars instead. A later attempt by NORDAM to fix the numbers, sent two months after discussions closed, was properly rejected as an untimely revision. GAO also denied NORDAM’s challenge to Vertex’s evaluation, holding that the agency reasonably assessed Vertex’s small business plan using historical subcontractor relationships and past compliance data, exactly as the solicitation contemplated.

Oready, LLC, B-424375 - July 7, 2026

Oready protested the Government Publishing Office’s determination that it was not responsible to print IRS internal revenue manuals, after the agency’s quality control team found gaps in Oready’s pre-award security, quality, and equipment plans, including missing floor layouts and equipment incapable of meeting the required printing standard. Oready argued the nonresponsibility finding was unsupported and that the agency effectively invented a dispositive requirement around quality level certification.

GAO denied the protest, noting that contracting officers have wide discretion in responsibility determinations and that Oready simply failed to provide much of what the agency asked for, including a floor plan and updated equipment details, and never demonstrated its ability to meet the quality standard through samples or past performance as the solicitation contemplated. GAO also brushed aside Oready’s complaint that the agency hadn’t given it a second chance to fix its submission, holding that the agency reasonably based its decision on what Oready actually provided.

Weston Solutions, Inc.; Tetra Tech, Inc., B-424322 et al. - July 7, 2026

Weston and Tetra Tech separately protested the Army Corps of Engineers’ award to Pond Constructors for fuel program maintenance services in the South Atlantic Division. Weston argued the agency wrongly assigned it a weakness for appearing to route corrective maintenance items through the formal service order process, and that it deserved strengths for its incumbent staff. Tetra Tech, meanwhile, argued the source selection authority improperly overrode the technical evaluators by finding Pond’s “good” proposal superior to Tetra Tech’s own “outstanding” one.

GAO denied both protests. It held that Weston’s proposal language genuinely supported the agency’s reading, and that an incumbent isn’t entitled to credit for experience just because the agency happens to already know about it. On Tetra Tech’s challenge, GAO reaffirmed that a source selection authority may independently weigh the significance of strengths and weaknesses even after adopting the underlying evaluation findings, so long as the reasoning is documented, and here the SSA explained why Pond’s advantages were more concrete and quantifiable than Tetra Tech’s. GAO also rejected Tetra Tech’s challenge to a stray comment about its “unreasonably high” emergency fee, since the SSA had already determined Pond was higher-rated and lower-priced regardless, meaning no tradeoff was even required.

Stondoh LLC, B-424439 - July 7, 2026

Stondoh LLC challenged the Department of Labor’s award of a task order to WINTrio LLC for security control assessor and plan of action and milestones validation services, arguing the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision ignored the substantial technical advantages reflected in Stondoh’s “outstanding” rating. Stondoh’s proposal carried a significantly higher price than WINTrio’s, which came in slightly under the government’s cost estimate and was the lowest of the 26 quotations received.

GAO denied the protest, finding the source selection authority had specifically weighed the nine strengths identified in Stondoh’s proposal against WINTrio’s fewer strengths and several weaknesses, and reasonably concluded that the roughly 75 percent price premium wasn’t justified by the incremental benefit of an outstanding rating over a good one. The decision also flagged a wrinkle regarding the solicitation’s use of pre-RFO versions of FAR clauses even though the agency had already adopted the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul changes to FAR part 8, a discrepancy GAO noted for the agency’s benefit going forward.

Strategic Alliance Business Group, LLC, B-423306.19 - July 2, 2026

Strategic Alliance Business Group, LLC (Strategic) challenged its elimination from the NASA Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement VI (SEWP VI) competition. The agency eliminated the firm’s proposals for two different categories because they failed to include a mandatory C-SCRM (Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management) attestation form or an O-TTPS certification, both of which were expressly required by the solicitation instructions. Strategic argued that its general technical narrative sufficiently demonstrated its C-SCRM capability, making the specific form redundant.

The GAO denied the protest, affirming that offerors bear the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal that strictly adheres to all material solicitation instructions. The solicitation contained clear, unambiguous language stating that a "non-response" to any part of the mission suitability volume would result in ineligibility. Because Strategic failed to provide the mandatory attestation form or the certification, the GAO concluded the agency reasonably assigned a “no confidence” rating and eliminated the proposals, noting that Strategic had no right to clarifications to cure material omissions.

FCN, Inc., B-424249 - July 1, 2026

FCN, Inc. challenged the terms of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) solicitation for an enterprise virtualization and cloud platform, which requested proposals for the Nutanix Cloud Platform or an equal alternative. FCN argued that several technical requirements, such as live, in-place hypervisor conversion and disaster recovery without separately licensed software, were unduly restrictive and unnecessary to meet the agency's needs. FCN further alleged that the solicitation created an improper “de facto sole source” procurement by identifying specific Nutanix brand-name products in the procurement's bill of materials.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part. The GAO found the agency provided reasonable, logical explanations for its requirements, such as the need to minimize downtime during migrations and to avoid the heightened risk of incompatibility associated with add-on disaster recovery software. Regarding the “brand name or equal” issue, the GAO affirmed that the solicitation explicitly permitted vendors to propose alternative platforms, and therefore did not create a sole-source restriction. The GAO dismissed as untimely FCN’s supplemental challenge that the solicitation failed to adequately define salient characteristics for the brand-name products, as this alleged defect was apparent on the face of the solicitation and should have been raised prior to the closing date.

BCCG JV, B-424377 - June 26, 2026

BCCG JV protested the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's issuance of a task order to Cochrane USA Inc. for the design and construction of waterborne barriers along the southern U.S. border. BCCG contended that the agency improperly issued the task order on a sole-source basis and alleged that the procurement violated restrictions against organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) due to the awardee's employment of a former agency official.

The GAO dismissed the protest. Regarding the sole-source award, the GAO determined it lacked jurisdiction because the agency issued the task order pursuant to a waiver under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which vests exclusive jurisdiction over such claims in the United States district courts. The GAO noted that the IIRIRA waiver, published in the Federal Register, expressly authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive legal requirements, including competitive fair opportunity procedures, to ensure the expeditious construction of border infrastructure. Additionally, the GAO dismissed the conflict of interest allegations for failing to provide a factually and legally sufficient basis, as the protester offered only mere speculation rather than the “hard facts” required to substantiate an OCI claim.

InterImage, Inc., B-424347; B-424347.2 - June 26, 2026

InterImage, Inc. protested the issuance of a task order to Trillion Technology Solutions, Inc. by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for functional management support services. InterImage alleged that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal, particularly by giving Trillion technical credit for its experience with the Joint Planning and Execution Services (JPES) system, which InterImage argued was not a requirement and offered no benefit. The protester also argued that the agency’s best-value tradeoff was flawed and based on an unreasonable evaluation of competing proposals.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical approach to be reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The GAO held that the agency reasonably identified the awardee’s experience as the JPES developer as a discriminator, as it demonstrated a "unique and comprehensive understanding" of the agency’s data, applications, and interfaces. Finally, the GAO upheld the agency’s best-value determination, finding that the Source Selection Authority (SSA) qualitatively compared the proposals and provided a rational basis for concluding that Trillion’s superior technical insight and complexity of experience outweighed the price difference between the quotations.

Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. - Costs, B-424049.4 - June 25, 2026

Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. requested that the GAO recommend reimbursement of protest costs following the Army’s decision to take corrective action in a procurement for quality assurance services. While the agency agreed to reimburse Accura for costs related to its meritorious price evaluation and best-value tradeoff challenges, it refused to reimburse costs related to Accura’s unsuccessful technical evaluation challenges.

The GAO denied the request for the additional costs, finding the unsuccessful technical evaluation challenges to be clearly severable from the meritorious issues. The GAO explained that the technical challenges focused on entirely different core facts and legal theories (specifically, whether the protester deserved a higher technical rating) than the meritorious challenges concerning the agency’s failure to conduct a price realism analysis and consider option-year pricing. Because the issues were not intertwined, the GAO concluded that the agency was only obligated to reimburse the protester for the costs associated with the successful protest grounds.

FedWriters, Inc., B-424376 - June 25, 2026

FedWriters, Inc. protested the terms of a National Science Foundation (NSF) solicitation for a multiple-award blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for communications support services. The protester argued that the agency failed to conduct a consolidation analysis required by Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) section 7.107-2, which requires agencies to justify that the benefits of consolidating requirements outweigh the advantages of alternative contracting approaches.

The GAO dismissed the protest, ruling that the consolidation analysis requirements in RFO section 7.107-2 do not apply to the establishment of BPAs. The GAO noted that the definition of “consolidation” in the regulations refers specifically to contracts and orders and under established precedent, a BPA is not considered a contract under that regulatory definition. The GAO also dismissed as untimely the protester’s attempt to raise alternative arguments regarding consolidation at the individual call-order level, as these were presented in an impermissible piecemeal fashion well after the initial protest filing.

Indigo Ridge Farms, LLC, B-424156.2; B-424156.3 - June 25, 2026

Indigo Ridge Farms, LLC challenged the Army’s award of an IDIQ contract to SOF Landing, LLC for live goats used as training aids for combat medics. The protester argued that the awardee’s USDA Class B license only authorized the handling of 200 animals, while the protester insisted the solicitation mandated that offerors possess a license authorizing the handling and storage of up to 500 animals.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the protester’s interpretation of the solicitation to be unreasonable. The GAO explained that the solicitation contained two distinct requirements: the submission of a valid USDA license (which the agency evaluated for good standing) and a separate technical requirement to provide facility diagrams demonstrating the physical capacity to house 500 animals. The GAO ruled that the solicitation never imposed a requirement that the USDA license itself explicitly authorize the handling of 500 animals at the time of proposal submission, making the agency’s evaluation consistent with the stated terms.

DexteriTech Solutions, LLC, B-424358; B-424358.2 - June 23, 2026

DexteriTech Solutions, LLC protested the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) issuance of a task order to Client First Technologies, Inc. for administrative and operational support services regarding information technology systems. The protester challenged the agency's technical evaluation, asserting that the agency failed to properly assess the feasibility of its task execution plan and argued that the agency overlooked risks in the awardee’s lower proposed price.

The GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part. The GAO found the agency’s technical evaluation was adequately documented and consistent with the solicitation, noting that the agency was not required to conduct a separate risk assessment beyond the criteria already defined in the “acceptable” rating. The GAO dismissed DexteriTech’s argument regarding the awardee’s low price, clarifying that the solicitation did not provide for a price realism evaluation. Because the solicitation contemplated a firm-fixed-price task order without a realism provision, the agency was neither required nor permitted to evaluate whether the proposed prices were too low.

InnoVet Technologies, LLC, B-423306.20 - June 22, 2026

InnoVet Technologies, LLC protested its elimination from NASA’s competition for the sixth generation of the Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP VI) contract vehicle, specifically for categories B and C. The solicitation required offerors to submit a management approach narrative describing corporate processes regarding cybersecurity supply chain risk management (C-SCRM) and the IT security of contractor-acquired property, as well as how the firm addresses key C-SCRM practices. NASA eliminated InnoVet after determining the proposal failed to include this required narrative, resulting in a rating of “no confidence”.

The GAO denied the protest, affirming that an offeror bears the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal that contains all required information. The GAO found that InnoVet’s attempt to substitute a general C-SCRM attestation form and a technical approach narrative, which focused only on providing services to the agency, did not satisfy the specific requirement to describe the firm’s internal corporate processes and resources regarding C-SCRM risks. Because the solicitation expressly warned that a “non-response” to any part of the mission suitability volume would result in ineligibility, the GAO ruled the agency acted reasonably in eliminating the proposal.

AVMAC LLC, B-424201.3; B-424201.4 - June 22, 2026

AVMAC LLC challenged the General Services Administration’s (GSA) issuance of a task order to Strategic Technology Institute (STI) for maintenance of MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft for the Marine Corps. AVMAC argued that the agency misevaluated technical proposals, failed to perform a reasonable risk assessment of STI’s staffing, and conducted unfair discussions by allowing only STI to revise its proposal during corrective action. Additionally, AVMAC alleged that the agency’s best-value tradeoff improperly relied on a determination that all offerors were technically equal, effectively treating the procurement as a lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) competition.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision to be reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Regarding the corrective action, the GAO ruled that the agency reasonably limited discussions to STI because it had discovered a previously undetected inconsistency in STI’s proposal that needed to be addressed; these limited exchanges placed STI in the same competitive position as other offerors who had already received meaningful discussions in earlier rounds. The GAO concluded that the agency appropriately weighed the non-price factors and reasonably determined that the technical advantages of AVMAC’s proposal did not justify paying the 12 percent price premium over lower-priced competitors.

OS-DB-JV-2, LLC, B-424382 - June 22, 2026

OS-DB-JV-2, LLC (OSDBJV2) protested its exclusion from the competitive range under a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) request for proposals for janitorial services at the VA Caribbean Healthcare System and Mayaguez Out-Patient Clinic in Puerto Rico. The VA had established a competitive range of two offerors but subsequently eliminated OSDBJV2 after discovering the firm failed to submit a mandatory joint venture certification required by 13 C.F.R. § 128.402(e). This certification, which was introduced via a post-proposal solicitation amendment, required a signature from an authorized official of each partner to the joint venture to attest to the joint venture agreement’s compliance with federal regulations and subcontracting limitations.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency reasonably determined the proposal failed to conform to a material term of the solicitation. The solicitation expressly stated that proposals failing to meet minimum requirements, including a material failure to conform to instructions, would be deemed unacceptable and excluded from consideration. The GAO concluded that the VA was not obligated to seek clarifications to allow the protester to cure this material omission, as doing so would have constituted improper discussions; furthermore, the GAO noted the protester's filing contained non-existent legal citations generated by AI, warning that future submissions of such inaccurate authority could result in sanctions.

Altus Technology Solutions, B-424316,B-424316.2 - June 18, 2026

Altus Technology Solutions challenged the Department of the Air Force’s award of a contract to VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions, LLC for operations, maintenance, and support services for primary training ranges. Altus argued that the agency improperly evaluated proposals under the program management and price factors, claiming the awardee’s quality control approach was inadequate because it utilized dual-hatted personnel rather than dedicated inspectors. Altus also asserted that its own proposal deserved additional strengths for offering incumbent personnel, and it contended that the awardee was ineligible for award due to minor errors in its System for Award Management (SAM) registration.

The GAO denied the protest, upholding the agency’s evaluation as reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The GAO found that the solicitation did not mandate full-time, dedicated quality control personnel, nor did it require the agency to grant extra credit simply for proposing incumbent staff. Regarding the price evaluation, the GAO ruled that the agency properly evaluated total overall evaluated prices as required by the solicitation, rejecting Altus’s attempts to force a deeper analysis of the awardee’s individual labor rates and optional backup data. Lastly, the GAO dismissed the SAM registration challenge, concluding that the awardee held an active registration at the time of submission and award, and that any minor informalities regarding ownership data did not undermine the validity of the award or prejudice other offerors.

DarkStar Intelligence, LLC, B-424306 - June 18, 2026

DarkStar Intelligence, LLC protested the Department of the Air Force’s issuance of a task order to Starlo Innovation, LLC for intelligence and operational support services. DarkStar argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the technical approach subfactor by improperly assigning a “Good” rating instead of “Outstanding,” applying unstated evaluation criteria, and arbitrarily identifying performance risks. Additionally, DarkStar contended that the agency failed to consider price when conducting its best-value tradeoff decision, allegedly paying a 9 percent premium for the awardee’s proposal without adequate justification.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s technical evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The GAO affirmed that the agency appropriately assessed risk after determining DarkStar’s proposal showed a “subtle imbalance” by framing its role more like an external consultant rather than demonstrating a deeply integrated, partner-centric understanding of law enforcement agencies. This finding logically fell within the solicitation’s requirement to demonstrate knowledge of how law enforcement components interact with the Department of Defense. The GAO also concluded that the agency meaningfully considered price in its tradeoff, fully documenting its rationale that the substantial benefits and reduced performance risk of the awardee’s superior technical proposal were well worth the 9 percent price premium.

Highlight Technologies, Inc., B-424060.2 - June 18, 2026

Highlight Technologies, Inc. challenged the General Services Administration’s (GSA) issuance of a call order to FedTec, LLC for enterprise data analytics operations and maintenance support. Highlight argued that the agency improperly added a $2 million annual ceiling price for optional supplemental labor to the total evaluated price, which misled Highlight into submitting a higher-priced quotation based on its belief that enhancement work would be funded piecemeal. The protester also challenged the agency’s best-value tradeoff and alleged that FedTec violated the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) by representing itself as the presumptive awardee to Highlight employees prior to the official award decision.

The GAO denied the protest, determining that Highlight failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice regarding the price evaluation. The solicitation clearly required vendors to use their business judgment in pricing fixed-price tasks, and the inclusion of the optional labor ceiling did not ultimately alter the relative price standing of the quotations. The GAO also upheld the best-value tradeoff, finding that the agency reasonably determined the protester’s technical advantages did not warrant a significant price premium of nearly $9 million. Finally, the GAO dismissed the PIA allegation as legally insufficient, noting that a private party boasting about an anticipated award to potential employees does not constitute credible evidence of government misconduct or an improper disclosure of source selection information.

South Dade Air Conditioning and Refrigerations, Inc., B-424292 - June 16, 2026

South Dade Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. (SDAC) challenged the General Services Administration’s (GSA) issuance of a blanket purchase agreement to AAA Complete Building Services, Inc. (CBS) for building services. SDAC alleged that CBS gained an unfair competitive advantage and suffered from an unmitigable conflict of interest because CBS employed a part-time worker who was also a full-time GSA building manager at the facility where the services would be performed. Additionally, SDAC argued that the agency improperly converted the best-value tradeoff into a lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) competition.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency conducted a reasonable investigation and properly concluded that no unfair competitive advantage existed. The record showed that the dual employee was entirely recused from the procurement prior to planning, had no access to sensitive or non-public information, and was completely walled off from CBS’s quotation preparation and future evaluation. The GAO also upheld the best-value tradeoff, observing that the Source Selection Authority thoroughly documented the decision and reasonably concluded that SDAC’s technical superiority was not worth its nearly $19 million price premium compared to the acceptable, lower-priced quotation from CBS.

The Gilchrist Law Firm, P.A., B-424421, B-424421.2 - June 11, 2026

The Gilchrist Law Firm, P.A. (GLF) challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs' rejection of its quotation for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compliance services. After experiencing computer malfunctions, GLF failed to upload its quotation to the GSA eBuy system by the 3:00 p.m. deadline, and instead attempted to submit its quotation via email almost two hours later.

The GAO dismissed the protest, affirming the agency’s decision to reject the quotation as late. The solicitation explicitly warned vendors not to wait until the last minute, strictly required that quotations be submitted electronically via the GSA eBuy website, and expressly stated that quotations submitted by any other method or after the deadline would not be evaluated. Because GLF failed to follow the mandatory submission instructions, its quotation was properly excluded from the competition.

TechGlobal, Inc., B-424287, B-424287.2 - June 10, 2026

TechGlobal, Inc. challenged the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) evaluation under an IT support services procurement. TechGlobal argued the agency utilized unstated evaluation criteria by specifically highlighting the awardee’s proposed use of Gemini AI as a key technical discriminator justifying a price premium, noting that the solicitation never explicitly mentioned artificial intelligence.

The GAO denied the protest, ruling that the agency’s consideration of the AI tool was logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria. The solicitation explicitly required vendors to develop and maintain help desk standard operating procedures (SOPs). Because the awardee proposed using Gemini AI to continuously update and maintain the accuracy of those SOPs, the GAO found a clear nexus between the stated PWS requirements and the innovative AI approach, confirming the agency’s evaluation was reasonable.

Servexo Protective Services, Inc., B-424349, B-424349.2 - June 9, 2026

Protestor Servexo Protective Services, Inc. challenged the Department of Agriculture’s decision to evaluate its quotation as technically unacceptable for a security guard services task order. The solicitation established a strict mathematical standard, warning that any vendor with more than 10 percent of its total CPARS ratings evaluating as marginal in specific categories would be deemed unacceptable. Because 17 of Servexo’s 74 schedule ratings were marginal, it was eliminated. Servexo argued that 15 of those marginal ratings stemmed from simultaneous task orders under a single overarching program and should have been counted as just one single event.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s strict application of the mathematical formula to be perfectly reasonable and consistent with the explicit terms of the solicitation. The solicitation did not require or permit a qualitative assessment of the ratings, nor did it allow the agency to consolidate distinct task orders into a single programmatic rating. Consequently, the agency properly counted each individual task order rating and appropriately deemed Servexo’s quotation unacceptable.

Octave Technologies Corporation, B-424253, B-424253.4 - June 8, 2026

Octave Technologies Corporation raised challenges against the same CMS API gateway FSS procurement contested by ID8Spark. Octave argued that CMS improperly assessed negative findings against its quotation under the corporate experience factor, alleging the agency utilized unstated evaluation criteria by judging the quality of its contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) partner’s past performance rather than simply verifying the experience.

The GAO denied the protest, ruling that the agency had a reasonable basis to assess the negative findings because Octave’s quotation contained factually inaccurate statements. Specifically, the agency evaluator had personal knowledge that the cited contract involved significantly fewer full-time equivalents and successful deliveries than Octave claimed in its quotation. The GAO concluded the agency reasonably viewed these misrepresentations as a performance risk, demonstrating a lack of accountability that justified the negative evaluation.

Science Applications International Corporation, B-424255, B-424255.2 - June 8, 2026

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) challenged the General Services Administration’s (GSA) evaluation of proposals for an enterprise information technology task order. SAIC argued its proposal was unreasonably rated “Good” instead of “Excellent” under the technical approach factor, and alleged disparate treatment because the awardee received a technical strength for its transition-in plan while SAIC, the incumbent contractor, did not.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s evaluation was thoroughly documented and consistent with the stated criteria. The GAO concluded that SAIC’s rating of “Good” accurately reflected its proposal, and rejected the disparate treatment claim because the competing transition-in plans offered substantively different approaches. The GAO emphasized that an agency is not required to automatically grant a technical strength to an incumbent’s transition plan simply because a non-incumbent received one for a highly detailed and distinct approach.

Oready, LLC, B-424508 et al. - June 8, 2026

Oready, LLC challenged the terms of three requests for quotations (RFQs) issued by the Bureau of Indian Education for therapy services, alleging that the solicitations included terms that unjustifiably limited competition. The agency argued that the protests should be dismissed because they were filed after the strict solicitation closing deadline.

The GAO dismissed the protests as untimely. Oready submitted the protests to the GAO's Electronic Protest Docketing System after the official 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time closing time on the day quotations were due. Under GAO regulations, submissions made after 5:30 p.m. are considered filed on the next business day, rendering Oready’s filing late. Furthermore, the GAO noted that merely emailing a copy of the GAO protest to the contracting officer prior to the deadline did not constitute a valid agency-level protest that could toll the timeliness rules.

ID8Spark, LLC, B-424253.2 et al. - June 8, 2026

ID8Spark, LLC challenged the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) evaluation of quotations under a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procurement for application programming interface (API) gateway support services. ID8Spark argued that the agency improperly assessed a negative finding under the corporate experience factor. ID8Spark had claimed experience performed by a joint venture partner of its proposed subcontractor, but agency database records showed the contract was actually held by a completely different large business entity.

The GAO denied the protest, ruling that CMS reasonably assessed the negative finding because the official contracting database records directly contradicted the claims in ID8Spark's quotation. The GAO also rejected ID8Spark’s argument that Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations required the agency to credit the experience. The regulations do not compel an agency to credit the experience of a joint venture participant of a proposed subcontractor when the prime contractor submitting the quotation did not actually hold the experience.

Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc., B-424336 - June 5, 2026

Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc. challenged the Department of the Navy’s evaluation of the awardee’s price proposal and the subsequent lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) award decision for submarine escape and surface survival personnel equipment suits. Mustang argued that the agency failed to ensure the awardee’s price was fair and reasonable, alleging that the agency was required to analyze why the awardee’s price was significantly lower than historical pricing.

The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s price evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Because the solicitation contemplated a fixed-price contract and did not explicitly provide for a price realism evaluation, the agency was neither required nor permitted to evaluate whether the proposed prices were too low. The contracting officer appropriately determined the price was fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition and a comparison to historical unit prices, fully justifying the LPTA award.

Metro Accounting and Professional Services, LLC, B-424317 - May 26, 2026

Protestor Metro Accounting and Professional Services challenged the Department of the Air Force’s decision to eliminate its price proposal from a task order competition. The solicitation required offerors to submit a price narrative explaining the methodology used to develop the proposal, including the sources of pricing data, mathematical factors, and rationales for judgmental factors. The agency eliminated Metro’s proposal on a pass/fail basis after finding it failed to explain the source of its subcontractor's direct labor rates or the rationale for its subcontractors using Metro’s indirect rates. Metro argued the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria, claiming the price narrative requirement only applied to the prime contractor’s pricing, not subcontractor pricing.

The GAO denied the protest, concluding that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and perfectly aligned with the unambiguous terms of the solicitation. The GAO noted that the solicitation applied the price narrative requirement broadly to the “Offeror’s Price Proposal” meaning that if an offeror elected to use subcontractors, their pricing was inherently part of the proposal and subject to the exact same detailed narrative requirements.

The GAO also rejected Metro’s alternative argument that the solicitation was latently ambiguous because it stated the narrative "should" explain the methodology. The GAO explained that the word “should” was immediately followed by the mandatory phrase “shall address, at a minimum” clearly rendering the detailed pricing explanation a strict requirement rather than a mere recommendation. Because Metro failed to submit the mandatory pricing information, it was ineligible for award and lacked the interested party status necessary to challenge the awardee’s eligibility.

Soft Tech Consulting, Inc., B-424323 - May 22, 2026

Soft Tech Consulting protested the Department of Homeland Security’s elimination of its quotation during a procurement for information technology services conducted under FAR subpart 8.4 procedures. The solicitation required vendors to complete a pricing schedule and explicitly warned that any quoted labor rates exceeding the vendor’s General Services Administration (GSA) schedule rates would render the quotation non-compliant and ineligible for award. Soft Tech mistakenly typed “project manager, level A” instead of level “B” in its pricing workbook, but provided the higher labor rate corresponding to level B, which caused the rate to exceed its GSA schedule limit for a level A position. Soft Tech argued this was a minor clerical error and that the agency abused its discretion by rejecting the quotation without engaging in clarifications.

The GAO nonetheless denied the protest, finding the agency’s strict enforcement of the solicitation terms to be reasonable. The GAO emphasized that when conducting a procurement under FAR subpart 8.4, an agency is under no legal obligation to seek clarifications or conduct discussions with vendors regarding the content of their submitted quotations. Although the solicitation explicitly reserved the government’s right to engage in clarifications to better understand aspects of the quotation, this provision was strictly permissive, not mandatory. Because the agency possessed the discretion to either allow or deny clarifications, the GAO concluded that the agency did not act unreasonably by choosing not to engage in clarifications with Soft Tech to fix the pricing discrepancy.

JBW FEDITC II JV, LLC - Costs, B-424191.3 - May 22, 2026

JBW FEDITC II JV requested that the GAO recommend reimbursement of its protest costs following corrective action taken by the Department of the Air Force. The underlying protests challenged the agency’s alleged improper removal of cybersecurity requirements from the 8(a) small business development program. JBW argued that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action by engaging in “procedural maneuvering.” Specifically, it was by filing a request for dismissal and engaging in pre-report document disputes, instead of taking prompt action by the original agency report deadline, which forced JBW to expend unnecessary time and resources.

The GAO denied the request for costs, finding that the agency’s corrective action was prompt. While the original deadline for the agency report had indeed passed, the GAO had formally extended the due date after declining the agency’s initial dismissal request. Because the Air Force initiated its corrective action prior to this reinstated due date, the action was legally considered prompt, as it occurred before the protester was forced to expend time and resources filing comments responding to an agency report. The GAO further elaborated that an agency’s pursuit of a reasonable procedural litigation strategy, such as filing a colorable dismissal request or engaging in routine pre-report document disputes, does not constitute an undue delay. Early document production is highly useful to the protest process, and in this case, it directly facilitated the efficient resolution of the protest via corrective action without requiring the protester to prepare substantive comments.

Mission Analytics, LLC - Reconsideration, B-423980.5, B-423980.6 - May 22, 2026

Mission Analytics requested reconsideration of two prior GAO decisions that dismissed its protests concerning a Department of the Air Force procurement for closed-circuit television system upgrades. The protester argued that the GAO committed factual and legal errors when it originally dismissed the protests as untimely and determined that the firm was not an interested party. Specifically, Mission Analytics contended that the GAO improperly concluded its agency-level protest was resolved without a formal written notice, and that the GAO should have excused its late filing due to technical difficulties experienced with the Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS).

The GAO denied and dismissed the requests for reconsideration. The GAO clarified that its bid protest regulations do not provide for appellate-style review of the sufficiency or manner in which an agency resolves an agency-level protest, meaning the agency effectively denied the protest by simply receiving and evaluating quotations without amending the solicitation. Furthermore, the timeline of when Mission Analytics learned of the contract award had no bearing on the strict 10-day deadline for challenging the terms of the solicitation, rendering its initial protest untimely.

Finally, the GAO reiterated that experiencing minor technical difficulties with EPDS does not excuse a protester’s failure to file a timely protest. Because the GAO had already previously considered and rejected the protester’s arguments concerning timeliness, its status as an interested party, and the EPDS difficulties, the GAO dismissed the second request for reconsideration, noting that its regulations do not contemplate or permit requests for reconsideration of reconsideration decisions.

TRAX International Corporation, B-424271, B-424271.2, B-424271.3 - May 20, 2026

Protestor TRAX International Corporation challenged the Department of the Army’s award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to Southwest Range Services, LLC for mission support services at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). The protester argued that the awardee possessed an unmitigable impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) because the performance work statement (PWS) required the contractor to test systems produced by Southwest Range’s affiliated entities, such as EWA Warrior Services, Electronic Warfare Associates, and Sigma Defense. Additionally, the protester challenged the agency’s technical evaluation, asserting that the Army unreasonably assigned significant strengths to the awardee for proposing to retain 100 percent of the incumbent workforce and for proposing a streamlined management structure. The protester also argued that the agency failed to recognize qualitative differences in the offerors’ past performance records.

The GAO denied the protest, finding no clear evidence that the agency’s OCI investigation was unreasonable. The record showed the contracting officer obtained sworn declarations and consulted with agency personnel to confirm that the specific products identified by the protester were either not weapons systems, not applicable to the mission, or not tested at WSMR. Regarding the technical evaluation, the GAO found the agency’s assignment of strengths was reasonable; Southwest Range’s proposal explicitly made it a pre-award priority to retain the entire incumbent workforce, and its organizational chart demonstrated a more streamlined management structure with fewer layers of reporting than TRAX’s proposed structure.

Finally, the GAO rejected the protester’s past performance arguments. While TRAX pointed out it had received more exceptional Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings on a similar contract than Southwest Range did on the incumbent WSMR contract, both offerors received multiple exceptional ratings and none lower than satisfactory. The GAO concluded the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably found no meaningful distinction between the two highly-rated, highly-relevant records. The GAO also noted that while the agency erroneously assigned a weakness to TRAX’s continuity of operations plan, the error was harmless because the SSA did not rely on it in the best-value tradeoff.

N&S Property Services, LLC, B-423852.2, B-423852.3 - May 19, 2026

N&S Property Services challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s technical evaluations during a competitive 8(a) set-aside procurement for facility operations and maintenance services at Fort Benning. The protester argued that the agency unreasonably assigned lowers confidence findings to its technical proposal regarding its Building Operating Plan (BOP) and weekly progress reporting. Furthermore, N&S contended that during a corrective action reevaluation, the agency arbitrarily elevated the awardee’s (KCorp) proposal to a “raises confidence” rating in several areas, such as equipment inventory and tours, without any corresponding changes to KCorp’s proposal or adequate justification in the record.

The GAO sustained the protest, determining that the agency’s negative findings regarding the protester’s BOP were untethered from the solicitation criteria. The agency penalized N&S for failing to provide a recommended BOP and an “implementation history” but the GAO noted the BOP was a post-award deliverable, and requiring an implementation history constituted an unstated evaluation criterion. The agency also unreasonably criticized N&S’s proposal as vague for using the word “coordinate” which was the exact terminology used in the PWS. However, the GAO did uphold the agency’s decision to apply a strict 25-page limit (which included the cover sheet and table of contents) to exclude a page of N&S’s proposal addressing progress reports.

Additionally, the GAO found the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal to be unreasonable and undocumented. The agency credited KCorp for proposing a computerized maintenance management system, but KCorp’s proposal actually stated it would transition to an entirely different system. The agency also upgraded KCorp’s approach to scheduled tours based on its “attention to detail” despite making the exact same underlying findings as the initial evaluation and failing to explain the change in conclusion. Because the SSA specifically relied on the flawed evaluation of N&S’s BOP approach to justify paying a price premium for KCorp’s proposal, the GAO found N&S was competitively prejudiced and recommended a reevaluation.

TFC Consulting, Inc., B-423996 - May 19, 2026

TFC Consulting contested the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) issuance of a Federal Supply Schedule task order to Centennial Technologies, Inc. for financial statement audit liaison and internal control support. TFC, the incumbent contractor, argued that Centennial should not have received the highest rating of high confidence for its technical scenarios because, as a non-incumbent, Centennial would inherently require significant government intervention to perform contract transition and Management Control Objective Plan (MCOP) responsibilities. The protester also argued the agency ignored highly relevant past performance examples in favor of marginally relevant ones, and that the best-value tradeoff reflected disparate treatment. The GAO denied the protest, emphasizing that an agency is not required to give extra credit for incumbent status, nor must it reserve the highest rating for the incumbent contractor. The agency reasonably identified multiple benefits in Centennial’s technical scenarios, noting the firm provided a highly detailed transition approach indicating staff readiness before the required 60-day mark, and demonstrated specific knowledge of TSA’s MCOP challenges by offering scalable plans to reduce error without requiring undue government intervention.

The GAO also upheld the agency’s past performance evaluation and best-value tradeoff. The agency evaluated three recent and highly relevant CPARS reports for TFC, all of which received the highest rating of exceptional across all evaluated categories. The GAO found that the protester’s preference for the agency to evaluate different, additional CPARS reports amounted to mere disagreement and demonstrated no competitive prejudice. In the tradeoff analysis, the SSA thoroughly documented qualitative discriminators, reasonably determining that Centennial’s custom automation tools and compliance monitoring approaches offered significant improvements over TFC’s proposal, fully justifying the award to Centennial at a lower price.

FCN Inc., B-424249 - May 18, 2026

FCN Inc. challenged the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) solicitation requirements for a virtualization modernization initiative task order. The solicitation was issued as a "brand name or equal" procurement identifying Nutanix as the brand name platform. FCN argued that several technical specifications (such as requiring a single shared storage pool, in-place conversion between hypervisors without data movement, disaster recovery without add-on software, and software installation within seven days) were unduly restrictive and unnecessary. Furthermore, FCN alleged that the solicitation effectively established an improper sole-source procurement by naming specific Nutanix products in the pricing attachments.

The GAO denied the primary protest grounds, finding that the IRS provided logical and comprehensive explanations for its requirements. The agency explained that a shared storage pool allows for independent scaling of compute and storage, in-place hypervisor conversion significantly reduces mission downtime, and integrated disaster recovery software eliminates the risk of updates breaking system compatibility. The agency also justified the 7-day installation requirement as a necessary measure to avoid paying for the costly legacy environment longer than necessary. The GAO found these explanations reasonably established the agency’s minimum needs. The GAO also rejected the protester’s sole-source allegations, noting that the solicitation explicitly and repeatedly used the phrase “brand name or equal” putting offerors on notice that alternative platforms would be considered. Finally, FCN argued in a supplemental filing that the solicitation was defective because it failed to map the required salient characteristics directly to the specific Nutanix products listed in the attachments. The GAO dismissed this argument as untimely, ruling that any alleged failure by the agency to connect salient characteristics to specific products was a patent defect apparent on the face of the solicitation, and therefore had to be protested prior to the deadline for receipt of quotations.

E-Logic, Inc., B-423306.13, B-423306.21 - May 18, 2026

E-Logic challenged the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) decision to eliminate its proposal from Phase 1 of the Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement VI (SEWP VI) competition. To advance, offerors had to complete an Exhibit 3a spreadsheet proposing a minimum of 100 contract line item numbers (CLINs) for non-primary technical areas and provide a Letter of Authorization (LOA) from their designated provider. E-Logic proposed HP as its designated provider and provided an LOA for HP, but in the product description column for its technical areas, the firm identified Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) as the manufacturer for the vast majority of the CLINs. E-Logic argued NASA improperly used information from the description column to override the manufacturer column and improperly used outside internet research to verify the manufacturer. The GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s compliance review was reasonable and adhered strictly to the solicitation. Upon noticing the facial discrepancy between the manufacturer column (HP) and the description column (HPE), the agency conducted a simple internet search which confirmed that HP and HPE are separate, publicly traded companies (HPQ vs. HPE) with different headquarters. Because E-Logic only submitted an LOA for HP, the agency properly excluded the HPE products from the tally, resulting in E-Logic falling significantly short of the 100 CLIN minimum.

The GAO rejected the protester’s argument that the agency was restricted to looking solely at the designated manufacturer column. The solicitation explicitly permitted the agency to review the entirety of the Exhibit 3a spreadsheet to verify that requirements were met. Furthermore, the GAO noted that the solicitation explicitly reserved the government’s right to verify the validity of the information provided, making the agency’s internet research to resolve a blatant discrepancy within the four corners of the proposal entirely appropriate and legally sound.

Exail Inc., B-424225; B-424225.2; B-424225.3 - May 13, 2026

The protester challenged a technical deficiency assigned to its proposal for failing to adequately address the solicitation’s requirements regarding training materials. Additionally, Exail alleged that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee’s technical proposal by relying on external information that was not contained within the four corners of the awardee’s submission.

The GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part. The GAO affirmed that the deficiency assigned to Exail was entirely reasonable and consistent with the clear terms of the solicitation. Regarding the evaluation of the awardee, the GAO dismissed the argument for failing to state a valid legal basis. The GAO reiterated a core government contracts principle: while an agency is not explicitly required to seek out external information during an evaluation, it is well within its broad discretion to rely upon external industry knowledge regarding an offeror’s past performance of which the agency is already aware.

Effective Communication Strategies, LLC; Corps of Engineers, B-423993.4,  B-423993.5 - May 13, 2026

Both the protester and the Department of the Army filed requests asking the GAO to modify a prior recommendation. In the underlying decision, the GAO had sustained the protest because the agency simultaneously revised its requirements and sought revised proposals over a weekend, depriving offerors of sufficient time to respond and effectively precluding a fair opportunity to compete.

The GAO granted the requests to modify its recommendation due to the changed circumstances of the procurement. Because the protested contract for replacement appliances had already been substantially completed, the standard remedy of reopening the competition and making a new award decision was no longer viable or meaningful. Consequently, the GAO modified its recommendation to align with the remedies available when corrective action is impracticable, advising the agency to reimburse the protester for its quotation preparation costs, as well as the reasonable costs incurred in filing and pursuing both the original protest and the request for reconsideration.

Platinum Business Services, LLC, B-424276, B-424276.2 - May 12, 2026

Platinum challenged the agency’s evaluation of the competing vendors’ technical and price quotations, as well as the resulting best-value tradeoff determination that ultimately led to the contract award. Platinum argued that the agency’s underlying evaluation errors improperly skewed the competitive standing in favor of the awardee.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that both the technical and price evaluations were reasonable and fully consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Turning to the best-value tradeoff, the GAO found the Source Selection Authority’s (SSA) decision to be thoroughly documented. The SSA specifically highlighted that the awardee offered a clearly defined management structure, a scalable oversight framework, and the ability to rapidly recruit staff. The GAO affirmed the SSA’s judgment that these elements represented a superior technical approach that fully justified the payment of a higher price.

i. solutions, Inc., B-424229, B-424229.2 - May 12, 2026

The protester argued that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) should have rejected the awardee’s proposal as ineligible because the awardee failed to provide notification of a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI). The protester also alleged that NASA conducted unequal and misleading discussions.

The GAO denied the protest. Central to the GAO’s finding on the OCI allegation was the fact that NASA had already formally executed a waiver for the alleged conflict in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Because the conflict was already waived, any further representation or notification concerning that specific OCI by the awardee was deemed immaterial to the procurement. Finally, the GAO reviewed the record and concluded that the agency’s evaluations and its conduct during discussions were reasonable, equal, and consistent with the solicitation’s requirements.

Covenant Aviation Security LLC, B-423995; B-423995.2 - May 11, 2026

The protester challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance and its price realism analysis concerning a task order. Covenant specifically alleged that the agency failed to properly assess the awardee’s blended labor rates, which combined regular and premium hours, and improperly overlooked the omission of certain non-labor costs in the awardee’s proposal.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest, ruling that the agency evaluated the rates and costs reasonably and in strict accordance with the solicitation’s stated criteria. Furthermore, the GAO upheld the best-value tradeoff decision, noting that the Source Selection Authority (SSA) comprehensively documented the comparative analysis. The GAO concluded that the SSA reasonably weighed Covenant’s specific strengths but ultimately determined that the protester’s slight technical advantages did not warrant the payment of its price premium.

New Dominion Construction LLC, B-424227 - May 8, 2026

The protester challenged its exclusion from the competitive range by the Department of the Navy. New Dominion Construction (NDC) alleged that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity regarding the definition of relevant corporate experience, arguing that the Navy improperly interpreted the solicitation to prohibit the use of subcontractor experience to satisfy the requirement. NDC also alleged the agency conducted misleading discussions.

The GAO denied the protest, concluding that when reading the solicitation as a whole, NDC’s interpretation of the corporate experience requirements was simply not reasonable. Regarding the discussions, the GAO rejected the protester’s claims, noting that the agency’s questions appropriately directed NDC to the areas of its proposal requiring revision. Furthermore, the GAO emphasized that NDC failed to demonstrate any competitive prejudice, as the firm could not identify any other qualifying projects it would or could have substituted to meet the experience requirement even if discussions had been broader.

AIMS-USGP JV LLC, B-424353 - May 8, 2026

The protester challenged the Department of the Army’s issuance of a task order, objecting specifically to the disqualification of its proposal under a compensation plan evaluation factor. AIMS argued that the agency’s evaluation was flawed because the Army applied a 6.6 percent Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalation rate to its pricing, a methodology the protester claimed was irrational.

The GAO dismissed the protest as an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation. The GAO pointed out that the solicitation explicitly and unambiguously warned offerors of the agency’s intention to develop an escalation rate based on the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data. Because this methodology was clearly established in the solicitation, the GAO ruled that if AIMS believed a different method (such as utilizing a 5-year average) was required, it was strictly mandated by GAO bid protest regulations to file an objection to those terms prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals.

Hasen Global, LLC, B-424168.2,B-424168.3 - May 6, 2026

In this case, Hasen Global challenged the Army Corps of Engineers’ award of a contract for the sustainment, restoration, and modernization of a tactical equipment maintenance facility. The solicitation established a best-value tradeoff where past performance was the most important non-price factor. Hasen, whose proposal was priced at $28 million compared to the awardee’s $33.6 million, argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and improperly minimized its price advantage.

The GAO denied the protest, upholding the agency’s evaluation. Hasen challenged weaknesses assigned to its small business participation (for leaving required socio-economic categories blank) and its summary schedule (for proposing working days instead of calendar days, as required). The GAO found these weaknesses reasonable, and further affirmed the agency’s decision to upgrade the awardee’s small business rating to “Acceptable” because the awardee had successfully detailed the type and complexity of work for its small business subcontractors.

Ultimately, the GAO found the best-value tradeoff to be unobjectionable. Because the solicitation heavily weighted past performance, the agency was justified in paying a premium for the awardee’s “Substantial Confidence” rating and technical superiority, which outweighed the risk associated with Hasen’s “Satisfactory Confidence” rating.

AlphaSpaces - Reconsideration, B-423971.3 - May 5, 2026

AlphaSpaces requested reconsideration of a prior GAO decision that dismissed its initial bid protest against the United States Space Force as untimely. In its request, AlphaSpaces argued that its ongoing email communications with the agency effectively paused the GAO’s strict filing deadlines. Additionally, the firm contended that its status as a pro se protester should excuse strict compliance with the filing rules, and it heavily reiterated merits-based arguments regarding alleged agency favoritism and ignored executive orders.

The GAO dismissed the request for reconsideration entirely. It firmly clarified that simply repeating the exact same arguments made during the original dismissal request does not constitute a legally valid basis for reconsideration. Furthermore, the GAO emphasized that its regulations make no distinction between pro se protesters and those represented by counsel; choosing to proceed without an attorney does not grant an exemption from the strict timelines of the bid protest system. Because the substantive merits of the protest were irrelevant to the underlying procedural fact that the filing was untimely, the original dismissal was upheld.

J&J Maintenance, Inc, d/b/a J&J Worldwide Services, B-423821.2, B-423821.3 - May 4, 2026

J&J Maintenance protested an Army Corps of Engineers task order for facility management services in Europe, alleging the awardee, King and George, LLC (K&G), failed to meet multiple material solicitation requirements. First, J&J argued K&G failed to timely initiate an Italian anti-mafia white list registration with a local prefect. The GAO rejected this argument, finding that K&G’s legal counsel had contacted the prefect prior to the deadline, reasonably satisfying the broad requirement to initiate the process, and noting that J&J suffered no competitive prejudice from the timing of the full packet submission.

J&J also claimed K&G’s proposal was unacceptable because its organizational chart identified personnel by role rather than by name, and failed to explicitly name its subcontractors. The GAO found the requirement to identify personnel to be patently ambiguous, and because J&J did not challenge it prior to proposal submission, and actually failed to name approximately 50 of its own positions, it could not raise the issue post-award.

Regarding the subcontractors, the GAO noted that the solicitation explicitly required technical evaluators to review sanitized versions of the proposals that omitted all company names. Because the evaluators were shielded from knowing subcontractor identities during the review process, the omission of specific names in the proposal was immaterial and caused no competitive prejudice, leading the GAO to deny the protest.

Owl International Inc, d/b/a Global, a 1st Flagship Company, B-423281.4 - May 1, 2026

During corrective action on a procurement for Navy ship salvage material support, the Navy amended the solicitation to remove FAR provision 52.222-46 (Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees) and subsequently restricted offerors to revising only their cost/price proposals. Owl protested both the removal of the provision and the restriction on proposal revisions.

The GAO denied the first ground of the protest. Owl argued that the contract required 15 professional employees, which it claimed constituted “meaningful numbers” requiring the FAR provision. However, the GAO upheld the Navy’s discretion, noting that 15 employees represented only six percent of the total 249-person workforce, making it an insignificantly small portion that justified removing the evaluation requirement.

Despite upholding the provision’s removal, the GAO sustained the protest regarding the limitation on proposal revisions. The GAO agreed with Owl that an offeror’s technical approach to recruitment, retention, and training is inextricably linked to the compensation and benefits strategies previously evaluated under FAR 52.222-46. Because removing the compensation evaluation would logically cause an offeror to alter its broader technical and staffing strategies, the Navy acted unreasonably by refusing to allow revisions to the technical volumes.

Threat Tec, LLC, B-424221- April 30, 2026

Protester Threat Tec, LLC challenged the Department of the Army’s issuance of a sole-source contract to Chitra Productions, L.L.C. under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Threat Tec first argued that the sole-source award was improper. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismissed this ground as untimely, noting that both the initial protest on this matter and a supplemental protest deriving from it failed to meet the strict filing deadlines.

Threat Tec also alleged that the agency violated the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA), specifically arguing that the Army failed to conduct a proper investigation into an alleged PIA violation. The GAO dismissed this claim as well, finding it premature and lacking a legally sufficient basis. The GAO clarified that an agency’s alleged failure to investigate does not, by itself, constitute the government misconduct necessary to give rise to a PIA violation. Because Threat Tec failed to allege actual misconduct on the part of the government, the GAO found no basis to review the claim and dismissed the protest entirely.

Bailey’s Premier Services, LLC, B-423066.3 - April 29, 2026

Protester Bailey’s Premier Services, LLC challenged its non-selection for a Department of the Air Force multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for maintenance, repair, and overhaul services. Bailey’s argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable after the firm failed to include a completed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) in its technical volume. The protester contended that the Air Force should have waived this omission rather than eliminating the proposal.

The GAO denied the protest, noting that the solicitation explicitly required the SBPCD and clearly warned offerors that failing to provide it would result in the proposal being deemed technically unacceptable. Distinguishing this situation from prior cases where solicitations lacked strict pass/fail compliance criteria, the GAO found that the agency simply followed its own explicitly written rules. Ultimately, the GAO firmly rejected the suggestion that the agency was obligated to waive the protester’s failure to comply with material solicitation requirements.

KriaaNet, Inc., B-422717.4, B-422717.5 - April 28, 2026

Metro East Joint Venture, challenged a reprocurement task order issued by the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) to LBO Technology, LLC. After the BEP terminated KriaaNet’s original task order for default, the agency amended the solicitation to remove one position and add another, and then solicited a revised quotation from LBO, who was a competitor in the original procurement. KriaaNet argued that because the agency requested revised pricing and management approaches based on these changes, the BEP was no longer acquiring the same or similar services, thereby invalidating the reprocurement process.

The GAO denied the protest, concluding that the slight modification in personnel did not change the fundamental nature of the work being acquired. The GAO emphasized that the mere fact that an agency requests revised quotations does not establish that the required services are dissimilar. Because the overall level of effort remained the same, the GAO found the agency’s actions entirely reasonable and consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s preferred remedy of efficiently acquiring similar items from a competitor following a default termination.

SupplyCore, Inc., B-424243, B-424243.2 - April 22, 2026

Protester SupplyCore, Inc. challenged the General Services Administration’s (GSA) award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Amentum Services, Inc. for logistics operations solutions support services in Japan. SupplyCore argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated the competing proposals, alleging that flawed evaluations suppressed its own technical standing while improperly inflating Amentum’s comparative advantage. The protester claimed that these underlying evaluation errors ultimately deprived the Source Selection Authority (SSA) of an accurate basis for making the best-value judgment.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was entirely reasonable and consistent with both the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws. While SupplyCore attempted to argue that the agency erred in evaluating the awardee’s prior experience, the GAO found the argument unpersuasive and concluded that the protester failed to demonstrate any competitive prejudice. Ultimately, because the GAO concluded that all of SupplyCore’s underlying challenges to the evaluation lacked merit, it summarily dismissed the protester’s derivative challenge to the best-value tradeoff decision.

Metro East Joint Venture, LLC, B-424392 - April 22, 2026

Metro East Joint Venture, LLC challenged a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to issue a sole-source contract modification. This modification extended the incumbent contractor’s (Chenega Global Protection, LLC) performance of guard services. Metro East argued that by extending the sole-source contract for several months (until at least June 30), the agency was unreasonably delaying the implementation of a previously promised corrective action.

The GAO dismissed the protest as entirely untimely. The GAO pointed out that the agency had explicitly stated in a January 27 notice that incumbent performance could extend until June 30. If Metro East believed this timeline constituted an unreasonable delay of the corrective action, it was strictly required by GAO regulations to file its protest within 10 days of learning that information on January 27. Because Metro East failed to meet this deadline, the GAO refused to hear the merits of the claim.

However, in a notable footnote, the GAO issued a warning to the agency. The GAO stated that it expects corrective actions to be carried out with “reasonable efficiency,” cautioning that a mere promise of corrective action without prompt execution circumvents the fundamental economic and expeditious goals of the bid protest system.

Harper Construction Company, Inc. - Reconsideration, B-419947.4 - April 21, 2026

Protester Harper Construction Company, Inc. requested reconsideration of a prior GAO decision that denied its initial protest concerning a Department of the Navy task order for the repair of bachelor enlisted quarters. Harper argued that the prior decision contained errors of fact and law, alleging that the agency’s arguments before the GAO were inconsistent with the contemporaneous record. Specifically, the protester reiterated claims that the Navy’s position regarding certain Request for Information (RFI) responses was inconsistent with other parts of the solicitation that allowed for design deviations.

The GAO denied the request for reconsideration. The GAO found that Harper failed to demonstrate that the agency’s arguments actually contradicted the record. Furthermore, the GAO emphasized that Harper was simply repeating the exact same arguments that had been thoroughly considered and rejected during the underlying protest. Because a request for reconsideration must show a material error of fact or law, and cannot simply serve as a platform to express disagreement with a prior decision, the GAO concluded that Harper did not satisfy the strict standard required to reverse the original ruling.

Highland Engineering, Inc., B-424183, B-424183.2 - April 9, 2026

Highland Engineering, Inc. challenged the Department of the Air Force’s award of a contract to SelectTech Services Corporation. Highland first argued that the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ past performance, specifically regarding the relevance of their respective past efforts, was unreasonable. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied this claim, finding that the agency’s consideration of past performance relevance was completely reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria.

Highland also challenged the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision, primarily contending that the agency should have favorably considered Highland’s unsolicited offer of an additional warranty on repairs. The GAO denied this argument, noting that the solicitation expressly provided only for the evaluation of past performance and price. Because the request for proposals lacked any criteria under which the agency could evaluate an unsolicited warranty, the agency properly chose not to consider it. Ultimately, the GAO upheld the best-value determination, concluding that the Source Selection Authority reasonably decided that SelectTech’s strong record of relevant past performance was more advantageous to the government and fully justified its price premium.

Propel Solutions, LLC, B-424189, B-424189.2 - April 8, 2026

Protestor Propel Solutions, LLC challenged a Department of Commerce procurement, alleging that the agency failed to properly mitigate the competitive harm caused by the inadvertent disclosure of incumbent pricing information. Propel, a joint venture whose mentor member (Lynker) was the incumbent contractor, argued that its competitors gained an unfair competitive advantage when the agency accidentally released Lynker’s pricing data within hidden worksheets of the solicitation’s price schedule.

The GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency’s mitigation efforts were sufficient and reasonable. The record demonstrated that the agency investigated the disclosure and obtained statements from the competing vendors confirming that they had not accessed or viewed the hidden worksheets. Furthermore, the competitors certified that they had fully deleted and purged the original version of the price schedule file from their systems.

Ultimately, the GAO concluded that because the competing vendors did not know the hidden worksheets existed, did not access the pricing information, and certified the deletion of the compromised files, Propel’s competitors did not gain an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, the GAO rejected the protester’s attempts to poke holes in the vendors' responses and upheld the agency’s determinations.

Change Agents 360, LLC-Reconsideration, B-424114.2 - April 8, 2026

Change Agents 360, LLC requested reconsideration of a prior GAO decision that dismissed its protest concerning a Department of State contract for commercial training services. Change Agents argued that the prior dismissal was based on an error of fact regarding the availability of contract funding. Specifically, the protester contended that the GAO erred in relying on the agency's claim that funds were unavailable because the agency had not officially recorded any de-obligation of the contract funding on SAM.gov.

The GAO denied the request for reconsideration. The GAO explained that the mere absence of information on SAM.gov does not demonstrate that funding actions or de-obligations have not taken place. Furthermore, the GAO reiterated that it generally does not question an agency's representations concerning the availability of funds or require detailed budget disclosures, noting that agencies have the right to cancel solicitations when their allocation determinations result in insufficient funding. Because the protester's disagreement did not demonstrate a material error of fact or law in the original decision, the GAO upheld the dismissal.

Effective Communication Strategies, LLC; Corps of Engineers, B-423993, B-423993.2 - April 8, 2026

Protester Effective Communication Strategies, LLC challenged the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers’ award of a contract for replacement appliances to Export 220Volt, Inc. Effective Communication Strategies (ECS) argued that the agency failed to provide sufficient time for the firm to respond to requests for revised and final proposal revisions.

The GAO sustained the protest and found that the agency engaged in a pattern of simultaneously revising its requirements while demanding revised proposals from offerors on very short notice. Because these abbreviated response windows, several of which fell over the weekend, did not provide ECS with a fair opportunity to meaningfully improve its proposal, the GAO concluded the agency's actions were improper.

Additionally, the GAO addressed ECS’s claim that the agency's requirements were unduly restrictive of competition. The GAO noted that the agency’s shifting specifications appeared to establish a de facto brand name requirement for a specific refrigerator model (the Vestel model 263) due to a lack of viable commercial alternatives responsive to the initial requirements. While sustaining the protest on the proposal timing grounds and recommending the reimbursement of protest costs, the GAO also advised the agency to review whether its solicitation accurately reflected its true minimum needs to ensure full and open competition.

z SofTech Solutions, Inc., B-423306.9, B-423306.16, April 6, 2026

z SofTech Solutions, Inc. challenged NASA’s decision to eliminate its proposal from a competition for information technology and cybersecurity services. z SofTech’s elimination was based on its failure to submit a required past performance volume, as well as its failure to meet other solicitation requirements. The protester subsequently filed supplemental protests asserting that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable and raising new allegations, including claims that the agency acted in bad faith.

The GAO dismissed the protest in its entirety due to untimeliness and the piecemeal presentation of arguments. The GAO found that z SofTech attempted to introduce new information, alternative legal theories, and allegations of bad faith in later supplemental submissions, despite having actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying facts well before filing. Because the protester failed to raise these arguments within the strict 10-day window after the basis of the protest was known or should have been known, the GAO refused to consider them. The decision serves as a firm reminder of the GAO’s strict prohibition against protesters holding back arguments or evidence that could have been raised in their initial filings.

Mission Analytics, LLC – Reconsideration, B-423980.2,B-423980.4 - April 2, 2026

Mission Analytics, LLC requested reconsideration of a prior GAO decision that had dismissed its initial protest concerning a Department of the Air Force solicitation and subsequent award for a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system to Wingmann, LLC. Mission Analytics argued that the prior dismissal contained errors of fact and law, specifically alleging that a procedural question or issue within the Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS) caused a “few minutes of delay” that resulted in its initial protest being filed late. The protester claimed it did not know about this system issue until February 3 and therefore should not be held responsible for the delay.

The GAO denied the request for reconsideration. First, the GAO found that the protester failed to provide any evidence or explanation as to why the information about the alleged EPDS issue was unavailable during the initial protest, which is a requirement for granting reconsideration. More importantly, the GAO emphasized that when EPDS is functioning and available, a user’s failure to timely complete a filing is generally not excusable. The GAO concluded that the delay was entirely attributable to an imprudent decision to log into the system just a few minutes before the deadline, reiterating the firm rule that “an untimely filing that results from lack of diligence is still untimely.”

DSC - EMI II, LLC, B-424177, B-424177.2 - April 2, 2026

DSC - EMI II, LLC challenged the Department of the Navy’s award of a multi-function support services contract at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia to FL GCR JV, LLC. DSC-EMI primarily argued that the agency unreasonably failed to assign its proposal multiple strengths under the technical approach factor for features such as proposing named and vetted personnel, offering surge support, and providing reduced emergency response times. The GAO denied these claims, finding that the agency reasonably concluded these features did not exceed the solicitation’s requirements or provide a meaningful advantage to the government. For example, the GAO noted that proposing a full-time locksmith and a railway maintenance subcontractor were already explicit requirements of the solicitation, and the solicitation did not actually include any surge support requirements. Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that DSC-EMI's approach of quickly deploying a “lead technician” to an emergency did not guarantee that all appropriate personnel and equipment would arrive within the required one-hour window.

DSC-EMI also argued that FL GCR’s proposal should have received a deficiency under the technical approach factor because its organizational chart allegedly lacked correlation between the proposed labor hours and specific specification items. The protester pointed out that the Navy had previously assessed a deficiency to DSC-EMI’s own initial proposal for a similar issue during discussions. The GAO rejected this argument, clarifying that the solicitation did not actually require the organizational chart to correlate labor hours to each specific specification item. Instead, the RFP only required that the staffing levels in the organizational chart be consistent with the labor hours proposed in a separate spreadsheet attachment. Because the agency could successfully cross-walk the awardee’s full-time equivalents and labor classifications with its spreadsheet, the evaluation was perfectly reasonable.

Ultimately, the GAO found no basis to question the Navy’s evaluation. Because all of the protester’s challenges to the technical evaluation failed, the GAO denied the protest, leaving the Navy’s award to FL GCR, which offered a significantly lower total evaluated price of $24,063,635 compared to DSC-EMI’s $30,649,764, fully intact.

GSH of Alabama, LLC, B-424012 - April 2, 2026

Protestor GSH of Alabama, LLC challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s issuance of a delivery order for manufactured housing units (MHUs) to Gibbco, LLC. GSH first argued that the agency evaluated proposals using an unstated evaluation criterion and improperly failed to amend the solicitation despite allegedly knowing that its requirements had changed prior to the award. The GAO denied these claims, finding that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and concluding that the alleged changes to the requirements were not material.

GSH also challenged the agency’s price analysis and best-value tradeoff, contending that the agency failed to properly evaluate the offerors’ total overall prices. The GAO denied this ground as well, noting that the record clearly demonstrated the agency’s awareness of the $1.085 million price premium associated with Gibbco’s proposal. Gibbco’s total price was $68,971,150 compared to GSH’s $67,959,909.75. Despite this premium across the base and option quantities, the agency reasonably determined that Gibbco offered a more advantageous delivery schedule for the base quantity of MHUs, which justified the higher cost and represented the best value to the government. Because all of GSH’s underlying evaluation challenges were denied, the GAO found no basis to question the agency’s ultimate best-value determination and denied the protest.

KBR Wyle Services, LLC, B-423901.2 - April 1, 2026

The incumbent contractor, KBR Wyle Services, LLC, challenged NASA’s award of the COSMOS contract for spaceflight mission operations to ASCEND Aerospace & Technology, LLC. KBR first argued that ASCEND’s proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable because the awardee failed to propose any small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation. The GAO denied this claim, noting that because ASCEND is a small business joint venture, the solicitation’s requirements regarding SDB subcontracting plans were conflicting. More importantly, the RFP expressly stated that a proposal would not be rejected solely for failing to meet NASA’s recommended subcontracting goals. Thus, the agency reasonably assigned ASCEND a weakness for the omission rather than eliminating it from the competition entirely. KBR also challenged the agency’s evaluation of its own proposal under the mission suitability factor. Specifically, KBR argued it deserved a “significant strength” rather than a mere “strength” for its contract management plan, alleging that NASA improperly removed the word “greatly” from its evaluation during corrective action to preserve the award to ASCEND. The GAO denied this argument, finding that the agency reasonably concluded KBR’s plan was solid and complete, but did not “greatly enhance” contract performance enough to meet the solicitation’s strict definition of a significant strength. The GAO emphasized that an agency’s reevaluation during corrective action can reasonably differ from its original findings without being improper.

Finally, KBR contested a weakness assigned to its technical approach for repeatedly citing an incorrect Data Requirement Description (DRD) reference number in its proposal. The GAO upheld the agency’s evaluation, agreeing that KBR’s interchangeable use of the wrong DRD number to refer to multiple different deliverables demonstrated complacency and a lack of attention to detail. The GAO affirmed that it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit a clearly written proposal, and NASA reasonably found that KBR’s confusing references introduced risk regarding the completeness of vital contract documentation.

Enviremedial Services, Inc., B-423552.3 - March 31, 2026

Protestor Enviremedial Services, Inc. (ESI) challenged the Department of the Army’s award of a facilities maintenance contract to a lower-priced competitor, BryMak & Associates, following corrective action from a prior protest. ESI first alleged that the agency improperly credited the awardee with its subcontractor's past performance. The GAO dismissed this argument as untimely because ESI had raised the exact same issue in its initial protest, which was denied, and the firm failed to file a timely request for reconsideration of that decision.

ESI also challenged the agency’s evaluation of both offerors’ past performance. The protester argued that BryMak did not deserve a “Substantial Confidence” rating and that the Source Selection Authority (SSA) improperly downgraded ESI by focusing on three “Marginal” CPAR ratings on an interim assessment. The GAO denied these claims, finding BryMak’s rating was well-supported by its references, and ruling that the SSA reasonably looked behind the adjectival ratings to qualitatively assess risk. The GAO concluded it was fair for the agency to determine that ESI’s marginal ratings posed a potential performance risk that offset its larger volume of relevant experience.

Finally, the GAO upheld the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision. While ESI’s proposal was rated slightly higher technically, receiving an “Outstanding” versus BryMak’s “Good”, the SSA thoroughly documented the discriminators between the two. Because price was equal in importance to the non-price factors combined, the GAO affirmed the agency’s conclusion that ESI’s minor technical advantage did not justify paying a $356,277 (2.1 percent) price premium.

Bowhead Logistics Management, LLC, B-424143, B-424143.2 - March 31, 2026

Bowhead Logistics Management, LLC protested the Department of the Army’s issuance of a task order to Akima Facilities Operations, LLC for support services at the Letterkenny Army Depot. The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision, alleging unreasonable evaluations and disparate treatment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the agency reasonably assessed multiple weaknesses against Bowhead’s proposal. For instance, the GAO agreed with the agency that Bowhead failed to provide a required “refresh rate” for its candidate list, instead only providing a “fill rate” for filling vacancies. Furthermore, the GAO upheld a weakness assigned because Bowhead proposed to comply with the seniority requirements of an incumbent collective bargaining agreement, which directly conflicted with the solicitation’s clear mandate that hiring and transferring decisions be merit-based.

The GAO did identify one evaluation error, finding that the agency unreasonably assessed a strength for Akima’s quality control manager approach because the proposed face-to-face meetings merely met, rather than exceeded, the minimum performance work statement requirements. However, the GAO concluded that Bowhead suffered no competitive prejudice from this error. Under the terms of the solicitation, Bowhead’s reasonably assigned “Marginal” technical rating rendered it inherently ineligible for award. Because removing the single erroneously assigned strength from Akima’s “Good” rated proposal would not render Akima ineligible for award, Bowhead lacked the requisite interested party status to raise any remaining challenges. Ultimately, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.

Mission Critical Project Services, Inc., B-424081.2 - March 27, 2026

Enviremedial Mission Critical Project Services challenged the agency’s award of a contract for the installation of HVAC systems, alleging the agency improperly rejected its initial and alternate quotations as technically unacceptable. The solicitation specifically required vendors to provide exact brand name items with exact salient characteristics and model numbers. Enviremedial’s quotations failed to provide the specified model number required by the final revised solicitation. The GAO found the agency reasonably rejected the quotations as technically unacceptable for failing to conform to the material brand name requirements. Consequently, the GAO dismissed the remaining challenges, ruling that the Enviremedial was not an interested party to challenge the award because it failed to submit a timely or acceptable quotation. Notably, the GAO also issued a warning to the Enviremedial regarding its submission of non-existent case citations generated by artificial intelligence, noting that future reliance on AI without adequate verification could result in sanctions.

Harper Construction Company, Inc., B-419947.3 - March 26, 2026

In this bid protest, the core dispute boils down to a strict adherence to minimum design specifications versus a protester's reliance on broader, conceptual design flexibility. Despite submitting the lowest-priced proposal, Harper Construction lost out on a Department of the Navy task order for Marine Corps housing renovations because its conceptual drawings proposed kitchenettes that were significantly smaller than the 36 net square feet minimum clearly dictated by the solicitation. While Harper argued that its drawings were merely conceptual and that the solicitation permitted dimensional deviations for older facilities, the Navy maintained that failing to meet the hard minimums rendered the proposal technically unacceptable.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) completely sided with the Navy. The GAO clarified that because the solicitation explicitly required conceptual drawings to demonstrate compliance with design minimums, the Navy was fully justified in evaluating them strictly. Furthermore, the GAO ruled that even if the solicitation's rigid 36-square-foot minimum seemed to conflict with other provisions allowing for historical building deviations, this created a patent ambiguity. Because Harper waited until after the award to challenge this glaring contradiction, the protest on those grounds was dismissed as untimely. Consequently, GAO found that Harper suffered no competitive prejudice regarding its other evaluation complaints, as the kitchenette shortfall alone legitimately disqualified the firm from the competition.

Pat Williams Construction, LLC, B-424168 - March 25, 2026

Pat Williams Construction, LLC (PWC) protested the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers' award of a construction and renovation contract to Cerris Builders, Inc. PWC alleged that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award based on omissions in its summary schedule. The protester argued that the missing information was merely administrative and documentation-based, asserting that the agency should have engaged in clarifications to resolve the issues rather than rejecting the proposal outright. Additionally, PWC challenged the reasonableness of the agency's best-value tradeoff analysis.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest. GAO found that the agency reasonably assessed four deficiencies to PWC's proposal because the firm's summary schedule failed to include total float calculations, details for long-lead item activities, ordering dates for critical items, and a description of project turnover activities. GAO noted that this omitted information was necessary to meet the material requirements of the solicitation, justifying the unacceptable rating. Furthermore, GAO rejected the argument that the agency should have sought clarifications, explaining that allowing PWC to cure material proposal deficiencies would have constituted discussions, which the agency had explicitly stated it did not intend to conduct. Finally, because PWC's proposal was reasonably deemed unacceptable and ineligible for award, GAO concluded that PWC lacked the requisite interested party status to challenge the best-value tradeoff analysis.

Sigo Valiant JV, LLC, B-424103 - March 24, 2026

Sigo Valiant JC, LLC challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs' award of a construction contract for the expansion of the Marion National Cemetery to KMC Solutions, LLC. Sigo Valiant alleged that the awardee's bid contained a material misrepresentation regarding its intent to comply with the solicitation's limitations on the subcontracting clause. Specifically, the protester claimed that the awardee intended to use a non-SDVOSB “super sub” to perform the actual construction work. To support this claim, the protester provided a declaration detailing a third-hand conversation with an unnamed individual regarding the subcontractor's alleged plans.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismissed the protest because the allegations were speculative and lacked a sufficient factual basis. GAO noted that the protester's reliance on third-hand hearsay lacked both specificity and any indicia of reliability. Furthermore, GAO explained that even if the hearsay were credible, it did not establish a material misrepresentation. The applicable limitation on subcontracting clause strictly dictates that the prime contractor cannot pay more than 85 percent of the total contract amount to non-SDVOSB firms; it does not explicitly dictate the specific percentage of physical work the prime must perform. Because the alleged statements pertained to the physical scope of work rather than the monetary amount paid to the subcontractor, they did not prove the awardee falsely certified its compliance. Finally, GAO reiterated that an agency’s judgment regarding a firm's future compliance with subcontracting limitations is a matter of contractor responsibility and contract administration, which GAO generally does not review unless the bid is facially noncompliant.

Watermark Risk Management International, LLC, B-423878.3, B-423878.4, B-423878.5, B-423878.6 - Mar 23, 2026

Protester Watermark Risk Management International, LLC (Watermark) challenged the Department of Justice’s award of a contract for security and emergency management support services to Artex Group LLC. Watermark alleged that the awardee made material misrepresentations regarding the employment status of its proposed corporate staff. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied this protest ground, finding that the solicitation did not require the agency to evaluate the specific qualifications or current employment status of the offered personnel. Instead, the evaluation criteria focused strictly on whether the offeror's organizational chart clearly defined its corporate structure and lines of authority.

Watermark also challenged the agency's decision to assign its proposal a “Neutral” rating under the past performance factor. GAO denied this claim, concluding that the agency reasonably determined the protester's references were either not sufficiently relevant—as they only met a fraction of the solicitation's task areas—or lacked the required, timely submitted past performance questionnaires necessary to assess performance quality.

Watermark protested various negative findings in the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal. GAO denied these challenges because the protester failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice. Even if GAO agreed with all of Watermark's technical objections, the protester left one assigned weakness unchallenged, meaning it could not mathematically achieve the perfect technical score that the awardee received. Because both firms received neutral past performance ratings and the awardee offered a lower price, resolving the protested technical issues in Watermark's favor would not have given it a substantial chance of receiving the award.

Rigid Security Group, Inc., d/b/a Rigid Tactical - Reconsideration, B-424123.3 - March 17, 2026

Rigid Security Group, Inc. requested reconsideration of a prior GAO decision that dismissed its protest against the Department of the Navy’s award of an explosive ordnance disposal instruction contract to Stronghold SOF Solutions, LLC. GAO originally dismissed the protest because Rigid failed to file its comments within 10 days of the agency report being filed. Rigid argued that its filing deadline should have been automatically extended because the GAO headquarters building in Washington, D.C., was closed for a “snow day” on the due date. Relying on 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(d), Rigid asserted that deadlines are tolled when the agency is closed.

GAO dismissed the request for reconsideration, primarily because Rigid failed to raise these arguments or respond to the Navy’s dismissal request during the original protest. Furthermore, GAO noted that even if it evaluated the merits of the claim, the original decision contained no errors of fact or law. GAO clarified that while its physical headquarters was closed, the agency was not officially closed; operations continued via telework, and the Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS) remained fully available for filing. Because electronic filing was still possible, and Rigid was on constructive notice of EPDS’s availability due to filings made by other parties on those same days, the physical office closure did not excuse the missed deadline.

Information Technology Strategies, Inc., B-424134 - March 16, 2026

Information Technology Strategies, Inc. (IT-Strat) protested a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) solicitation, arguing that requiring key personnel to have 5 to 10 years of specific experience with the Oracle EBS R12.2 platform was overly restrictive and unfairly favored the incumbent contractor.

GAO denied the primary protest because DLA provided a rational and well-documented justification for the requirement. DLA successfully demonstrated that hands-on experience with the specific R12.2 platform was critical to resolving issues and preventing unauthorized access due to the platform's unique system updates and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Furthermore, GAO dismissed IT-Strat’s remaining challenges to the solicitation. IT-Strat openly admitted that its submitted quotation did not meet the experience requirements for two of the key personnel roles, rendering its quotation noncompliant. Consequently, IT-Strat lacked the direct economic interest required to be considered an "interested party" eligible to challenge the rest of the procurement. 

iAdeptive Technologies, LLC, B-424158; B-424158.2 - March 13, 2026

This protest concerns the issuance of a task order to Red Tail Digital LLC by the Department of Health and Human Services for IT services supporting the Measure Authoring Development Integrated Environment (MADIE) application and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources Measure Repository. iAdeptive Technologies, LLC alleged that the agency conducted an unequal and unreasonable evaluation of quotations across the non-price factors. Furthermore, iAdeptive argued that the agency improperly evaluated Red Tail, a mentor-protégé joint venture, by relying entirely on the experience of its mentor member, and failed to verify if the protégé would meet the regulatory requirement to perform at least 40 percent of the work. 

GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part. Regarding the unequal evaluation claims, GAO found that the disparate confidence ratings were justified by material differences in the quotations; specifically, iAdeptive demonstrated a lack of understanding of the core technical requirements, resulting in unique negative findings that were not present in Red Tail's quotation. GAO dismissed the argument regarding the mentor's experience, explaining that recently revised Small Business Administration regulations (13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e)(1)) expressly permit an agency to rely solely on the past performance and experience of the mentor partner. Finally, GAO denied the 40 percent work share argument, stating that compliance with subcontracting limits is generally a matter of contract administration and responsibility. Because Red Tail's quotation did not specifically negate compliance and indicated an intent to hire incumbent staff, the joint venture was presumed compliant.

All-American Express Solutions, LLC, B-424167 - March 12, 2026

All-American Express Solutions, LLC challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs' establishment of a blanket purchase agreement with FG Management Group, LLC for laboratory and pharmacy courier services. The protester argued that the agency provided an inadequate debriefing, that the awardee failed to comply with material post-award reporting and delivery requirements, and that the agency conducted an unreasonable responsibility determination. Additionally, All-American alleged that the agency violated federal regulations and gave the awardee an unfair competitive advantage by distributing recruitment flyers for the awardee to the protester's employees after the award was made. GAO dismissed the protest in part and denied it in part. GAO dismissed the debriefing argument, noting that the procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures which only require a brief explanation of award, and that the adequacy of a debriefing is a procedural matter that GAO does not review. GAO also dismissed the arguments regarding contract requirements and responsibility because the delivery and reporting obligations were performance requirements evaluated during contract administration, not definitive responsibility criteria required at the time of quotation submission. Finally, GAO denied the unfair competitive advantage claim. Because the agency distributed the recruitment flyers after the blanket purchase agreement was already established, the agency did not provide quotation information beforehand and therefore did not create an unfair competitive advantage during the actual procurement process.

A6 Scientific Corporation, B-424138 - March 11, 2026

A6 Scientific Corporation (A6) protested the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing’s (BEP) award of a contract for commercial visitor center services to RIO Technical Services, LLC. The solicitation required offerors to achieve a rating of at least “Some Confidence” across all technical factors and subfactors, which included an oral presentation subfactor, to be eligible for award. A6 argued that the BEP conducted misleading and non-meaningful discussions by failing to inform A6 of significant weaknesses identified during its oral presentation, raising only price concerns instead. A6 asserted that, had the agency disclosed these oral presentation deficiencies, the firm would have addressed them in its final written proposal revision. GAO denied the protest, finding that A6 failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice. While GAO acknowledged that the agency did not identify the oral presentation defects during discussions, it concluded that A6 could not have resolved its “Low Confidence” oral presentation rating through a subsequent written proposal revision. Because the solicitation evaluated responsiveness and articulation specifically during the oral presentation, a written revision could not remedy those distinct performance failures.

Coastal Management Solutions, Inc., B-423344.3 - March 9, 2026

This protest concerns the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command’s award of a task order for tier one support services for the MyNavy Career Center (MNCC) to Strategic Data Systems, Inc. (SDS). The solicitation required vendors to provide detailed explanations of their techniques and procedures to successfully accomplish the requirements, with an award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering performance approach, past performance, and cost.

Protestor Coastal Management Solutions, Inc. argued that the Navy unreasonably and disparately evaluated the vendors’ performance approaches and past performance, alleging that the agency improperly downgraded Coastal’s experience while elevating SDS’s. Coastal also challenged the best-value tradeoff, arguing that its lower-priced quotation should have been found equally outstanding and selected for award. Here, GAO denied the protest, specifically finding that the Navy’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated criteria. GAO noted that Coastal failed to show that its proposed approaches were substantively indistinguishable from SDS’s to support a claim of disparate treatment. Additionally, GAO upheld the tradeoff decision, concluding that the contracting officer adequately documented why SDS’s superior workforce and knowledge management capabilities justified its 8.4 percent price premium.

AAA General Contractors, LLC - Reconsideration, B-423842.7 - March 6, 2026

This protest concerns the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) rejection of a proposal from AAA General Contractors, LLC for a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for maintenance, repair, and new construction services. The original solicitation included VAAR clause 852.219-75, which required offerors to submit a certification with their proposals stating their performance would comply with applicable limitations on subcontracting. Protester AAA General Contractors argued that the solicitation’s instructions did not clearly specify this certification requirement, asserting that its proposal’s omission of the document was a minor or clerical error that should have been resolved through clarifications.

After GAO initially denied the protest, ruling that the missing certification was a material requirement. AAA requested reconsideration, arguing that GAO overlooked critical issues of fact and law, including the allegation that the solicitation was latently ambiguous. GAO dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that AAA merely repeated prior arguments and failed to demonstrate any errors of fact or law in the prior decision. GAO specifically noted that proposals failing to satisfy material requirements stated in solicitation clauses are unawardable, and the specific location of such a requirement within the solicitation does not, by itself, render the solicitation ambiguous.

Karna, LLC, B-424039, B-424039.2, B-424039.3 - March 5, 2026

This protest concerns the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) award of a contract to General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT) for third-party administrator services supporting the World Trade Center Health Program. Protestor Karna, LLC challenged the agency’s evaluation of proposals and conduct of discussions, primarily arguing that the CDC conducted unequal discussions by affording GDIT an additional round of discussions. Karna also alleged that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions regarding Karna’s technical weaknesses, failed to properly recognize Karna’s superior past performance, and neglected to evaluate the realism of the offerors’ proposed levels of effort.

Here, GAO denied the protest in its entirety. GAO found that the additional round of discussions with GDIT was not unequal because the solicitation explicitly provided for separate discussions specific to proposed “betterments,” and GDIT was the only offeror in the competitive range to propose them. Furthermore, GAO determined the technical evaluation was reasonable and that the CDC was not required to raise non-significant weaknesses during discussions. Regarding past performance, GAO concluded that Karna was not competitively prejudiced by any alleged errors because GDIT was technically superior under more important evaluation factors and proposed a lower price. Finally, GAO dismissed the price realism arguments, noting the record demonstrated the agency properly evaluated whether each offeror’s unique level of effort was realistic for their specific technical approach.

XLCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., B-424026, B-424026.2 - March 4, 2026

This protest concerns the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) award of a fixed-price requirements contract for potassium chloride tablets to AvKARE, LLC. The agency utilized a commercial reverse auction process to determine the lowest evaluated price, requiring offerors to agree to specific auction terms and conditions, including a “Quiet Period” bid extension rule and a minimum bid decrement requirement. Protestor XLCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. argued that a technical glitch in the reverse auction system prevented its final revised bid from being accepted before the auction closed. XLCare also contended that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion by enforcing a $150,000 minimum bid decrement and improperly calculated the automatic bid extensions, which supposedly shortened the auction by seven minutes.

GAO denied the protest in part and dismissed it in part. GAO denied the procedural challenges, finding no evidence of a system malfunction and confirming that the agency correctly applied the bid extension rule according to its plain language. Additionally, GAO dismissed the challenge to the minimum bid decrement rule as an untimely challenge to the solicitation’s terms, noting that the requirement was prominently displayed and explicitly agreed to by XLCare prior to participating in the auction.

Adapt Forward, LLC, B-424006 - March 3, 2026

This protest concerns the Department of the Navy’s award of a task order to 3ReSen, LLC, a mentor-protégé joint venture, for support of the Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Atlantic’s Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP) team. The solicitation required offerors to submit contract references to demonstrate their experience, specifically stipulating that at least one current and relevant reference must be submitted by the prime contractor. Protestor Adapt Forward, LLC, the incumbent contractor, argued that the Navy unreasonably evaluated 3ReSen’s technical proposal. First, Adapt Forward claimed one of 3ReSen’s contract references was irrelevant because it allegedly supported a CSSP subscriber rather than a CSSP provider, as required by the solicitation. Second, Adapt Forward contended that 3ReSen failed to submit a required reference for the prime contractor itself, because the reference provided was for Sentar, Inc., the mentor partner of the joint venture, rather than the joint venture entity.

Here, GAO denied the protest in its entirety. GAO found the Navy’s relevance evaluation was reasonable, noting that agency evaluators properly relied on their personal knowledge to verify that the work performed under the challenged reference directly supported a CSSP provider. Additionally, GAO rejected the argument regarding the prime contractor reference, clarifying that when a solicitation defines the prime contractor simply as the offeror, a joint venture can satisfy the requirement by submitting an experience reference from one of its joint venture partners.

Hawthorne Commercial Construction--Reconsideration, B-423753.3 - March 2, 2026

Protestor Hawthorne Commercial Construction (Hawthorne) challenged the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in a request for reconsideration regarding solicitation for facilities construction services. In its initial protest, Hawthorne Commercial Construction challenged the VA’s evaluation of its proposal, specifically contesting a “limited confidence” past performance rating. However, GAO dismissed that original protest because Hawthorne failed to file comments responding to the agency report within the required 10-day timeframe. In requesting reconsideration, Hawthorne argued that the dismissal was improper because the company never affirmatively indicated an intent to abandon its protest and believed it could rely on its initially filed arguments without repeating them.

GAO denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the protester failed to show any errors of law or fact in the prior dismissal. GAO emphasized that under its Bid Protest Regulations, a failure to file comments within 10 calendar days mandates dismissal to ensure protests are resolved expeditiously. GAO specifically clarified that the regulations do not require a protester to demonstrate an intent to abandon the protest before it can be dismissed. Because Hawthorne was on notice of the strict filing deadline and failed to meet it, GAO concluded that the original dismissal was entirely proper and required by its regulations.

Dentrust Dental International, Inc., B-423938, B-423938.2 - February 6, 2026

This protest concerns the Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service’s award of a contract for medical examination services to Acuity International, LLC. The solicitation required the selected contractor to use an automated medical data management tracking system. If the offeror proposed a cloud-based system, the solicitation explicitly required both the contractor and the proposed system to be FedRAMP Authorized upon contract award. Alternatively, if an offeror proposed a non-cloud-based system, it was required to have a current Authority to Operate (ATO) from DHS or a subordinate component.

Protestor Dentrust Dental International, Inc. argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal and disparately evaluated it compared to the awardee. Dentrust, which proposed a cloud-based system hosted on a FedRAMP-authorized platform, was evaluated as having a weakness because its specific software system lacked its own independent FedRAMP authorization. Dentrust alleged this constituted an unstated evaluation criterion and that Acuity was treated disparately for receiving a higher rating for its non-cloud, non-FedRAMP authorized system. GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and aligned with the solicitation’s plain language, which required the proposed cloud system itself to hold FedRAMP authorization. GAO also dismissed the disparate treatment claim, noting that Acuity proposed a non-cloud system subject to different security requirements under the solicitation, which it met by possessing the required ATO documentation. 

Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”)

Venergy Group, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 7915, 8303 - August 18, 2026

This decision addressed the Department of Veterans Affairs’ motion to dismiss Venergy’s consolidated appeals as a sanction for alleged discovery misconduct. The underlying dispute involved Venergy’s challenge to a default termination on a VA medical center renovation contract, Venergy’s $4.2 million equitable adjustment claim, and the VA’s own $1.8 million counterclaim. During discovery on the monetary claims, the VA discovered that audited financial statements Venergy produced had been electronically altered, with white boxes inserted to hide contract billing schedules and figures changed throughout, manipulations that inflated Venergy’s home office overhead claim by more than $1.1 million. Metadata tied the alterations to an account matching Venergy’s CEO, though Venergy conducted no internal investigation to identify the culprit.

The Board granted the motion in part, dismissing Venergy’s affirmative monetary claim as a sanction. Applying a clear and convincing evidence standard, the Board found the manipulations could not have been inadvertent given their timing and effect, and rejected Venergy’s argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the misconduct sounded in fraud, clarifying that sanctioning discovery abuse before the tribunal is distinct from adjudicating fraud claims. The Board also rejected Venergy’s mootness argument, noting that later production of authentic documents does not cure the damage to proceeding integrity or the costs the VA incurred investigating the falsification. However, because the manipulated financial statements had no evidentiary connection to the default termination or the VA’s own counterclaim, the Board denied dismissal as to those two remaining matters, allowing them to proceed while leaving the door open for further sanctions if additional manipulated documents relevant to those claims come to light.

CTG Federal LLC v. Department of Justice, CBCA 8733, 8858 – August 12, 2026

This decision addressed the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether CTG Federal LLC’s price quote for Commvault data protection software was incorporated by reference into its contract with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). CTG had submitted a quote for a base year plus two option years that expressly stated it was to be incorporated into any government order and that included terms requiring DEA to use best efforts to obtain option-year funding and to refrain from acquiring functionally similar software for a year after any early termination. When DEA issued its order, it incorporated CTG’s quote by reference but limited the award amount to the base year, later declining to exercise the option years. CTG filed two claims alleging breach of contract and constructive termination for convenience, seeking over $3.6 million.

The Board granted CTG’s motion and denied DEA’s cross-motion, finding the quote was incorporated in its entirety rather than merely for the limited purpose of restating the base-year price. Applying Federal Circuit precedent on incorporation by reference, the Board found the order’s language, which cited the quote’s specific number and date and stated it was “hereby incorporated by reference,” met the standard for clear and unambiguous incorporation. The Board rejected DEA’s argument that only the price term was incorporated, reasoning that such a reading would render the incorporation superfluous since DEA did not need to reference the quote at all if it only wanted to restate figures already listed in its own offer. The Board also found that the quote’s funding and non-replacement terms did not conflict with DEA’s discretion to exercise or decline the options, but merely imposed conditions on how that discretion could be exercised, leaving the question of whether DEA’s non-exercise actually triggered those terms for further proceedings.

Group Health Incorporated v. Office of Personnel Management, CBCA 8940 – July 21, 2026

This decision addressed Appellant Group Health Incorporated's (GHI) appeal of a $15,086,311 repayment demand issued by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) contracting officer following an Inspector General audit of GHI's Federal Employees Health Benefits Program pharmacy operations. After GHI filed its appeal, OPM's counsel informed GHI that, contrary to an earlier representation from an OPM program analyst instructing GHI to treat the resolution letter as a final decision, the contracting officer had not actually intended the letter to be a final decision under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Both parties jointly asked the Board to dismiss the appeal without prejudice, and OPM's contracting officer submitted a declaration withdrawing the letter as a final decision to allow further discussions outside of litigation.

The Board first held that it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in the first place. Reviewing the substance of the resolution letter rather than its label, the Board found that a government demand for a sum certain, backed by a rationale and an instruction to pay, is treated as an appealable decision even without the standard notice-of-appeal-rights language required by the FAR. The Board also rejected the notion that the contracting officer's later withdrawal of the letter stripped away that jurisdiction, explaining that a contracting officer cannot divest the Board of jurisdiction simply by rescinding a decision after an appeal has already been properly filed.

Despite finding jurisdiction, the Board granted GHI's request to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. Because the contracting officer had withdrawn the letter to allow continued negotiation and expressly reserved the right to issue a new decision later, the Board found no reason to force the parties into litigation over a demand that was no longer final. The Board clarified that the appeal clock will only begin running again once the contracting officer issues a new decision resolving the underlying audit issues, leaving GHI free to negotiate with OPM in the meantime without an active deadline hanging over it.

All Phase Services, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8034 – June 30, 2026

This decision addressed Appellant All Phase Services, Inc.’s (APS) challenge to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) termination of its contract for default. The underlying dispute involved a contract to re-roof fifty-five roofs at a VA Medical Center in New York. After completing only seven roofs, the VA terminated APS for failure to make progress. APS sought to excuse its default by arguing that the government provided defective specifications. Specifically, APS alleged the contract required it to install roofing material and insulation to a height that would bury certain water drainage structures (thru-walls) located just above the roof deck. APS argued this defective design would allow water into the roofing system, thus voiding the manufacturer’s warranty and rendering performance impossible.

The Board denied the appeal, affirming the default termination. Under established government contracting law, a contractor seeking to excuse its default based on defective specifications must prove the specifications were actually defective, that the defect caused the contractor’s difficulties, and that the defect delayed or prevented performance. The Board ruled that APS failed to prove any of these elements. First, the Board credited expert testimony showing that the prior roofs had the same buried thru-walls without issue, and that the amount of water that could potentially collect was negligible. Second, the Board noted that APS only raised the issue in a Request for Information after it had already completed the seven roofs, and the roofing manufacturer explicitly confirmed it would still warranty the roof despite the buried structures. Because APS failed to establish that the specifications were defective or that they caused its failure to make progress, the Board upheld the termination for default.

Ameritel Communication Corporation v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 8934 - June 30, 2026

This decision addressed a joint motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely filing. The dispute arose from a contracting officer’s final decision that was issued and transmitted via email to Ameritel Communication Corporation on March 13, 2026. Ameritel filed its notice of appeal with the Board on June 18, 2026. Recognizing the timing issue, both parties jointly requested that the Board dismiss the case.

The Board granted the joint motion and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), a contractor is strictly required to file a notice of appeal to the Board within ninety days from the date of receipt of a contracting officer's final decision. Because Ameritel filed its appeal more than ninety days after receiving the March 13, 2026, decision, the statutory deadline had lapsed, permanently stripping the Board of any jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case.

Four LLC v. Office of Personnel Management, CBCA 8931 - June 29, 2026

This decision addressed a request to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to a premature filing. The underlying dispute involved a claim for $967,000 in damages for an alleged breach of contract regarding hosting and licensing services provided by Four LLC. The contractor submitted its claim to the contracting officer on May 20, 2026, but filed its notice of appeal with the Board less than a month later, on June 16, 2026. At the time of the appeal, the contracting officer had not yet issued a final decision and had explicitly indicated via email that a decision would be issued by late August.

The Board dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), the Board cannot exercise jurisdiction over a monetary claim unless the contracting officer has actually issued a final decision or a "deemed denial" has occurred. The Board reiterated that, by statute, a contracting officer has sixty days from the receipt of a certified claim over $100,000 to either issue a decision or notify the contractor when a decision will be issued. Because Four LLC filed its appeal before this mandatory sixty-day window expired, the appeal was legally premature and had to be dismissed.

Sanalil Construction, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8448 – June 8, 2026

This decision addressed Respondent Department of the Interior’s (DOI) motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The underlying dispute involved a contract with the National Park Service where Appellant Sanalil Construction, Inc. (SCI) submitted a claim for increased material and labor costs. After the contracting officer denied SCI’s first claim, SCI submitted a second claim seeking the same costs but alleging new grounds for recovery, specifically that it was induced to continue contract performance with promises of compensation. The agency argued that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely because the second claim was merely an attempt to revive the first, unappealed contracting officer’s final decision. Conversely, Appellant argued that the second claim constituted a valid, distinct claim because it relied on materially different facts and legal theories.

The Board denied the agency’s motion to dismiss, reaffirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Under established government contracting precedent, determining whether a submission is a new claim requires an examination of the operative facts and legal theories to see if the second claim is materially different from the first. Because the first claim made no allegations regarding inducement or promises of compensation, the Board found that SCI had successfully asserted a materially different second claim. The Board rejected the agency’s argument that the first decision determined those questions with finality, noting that the agency cannot simply dispose of the appeal by summarily concluding the contractor performed in accordance with the contract's terms. Furthermore, the Board clarified that at the motion to dismiss stage, it cannot make determinations regarding the credibility of the contractor’s disputed allegations. Finally, the Board ordered further proceedings to resolve the factual dispute regarding the alleged inducement.

Caring Hearts EMS, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8148 – May 18, 2026

This decision addressed Appellant Caring Hearts EMS’s failure to prosecute its appeal following the withdrawal of its legal counsel. The underlying dispute involved a commercial services contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide shuttle bus services for a medical facility in Alabama. Appellant failed to retain new counsel or respond to the government’s written discovery requests, prompting the presiding judge to suspend proceedings to allow time to find representation. Appellant ignored multiple direct orders requiring the filing of status reports by specific deadlines. Additionally, Appellant ignored a final order to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The Board dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that it possesses the authority to dismiss a case as a strict sanction when a party repeatedly fails to comply with the tribunal’s orders and deadlines. Under the Board’s procedures, an appellant must actively prosecute its claims arising from a Federal Government contract. Because Caring Hearts EMS entirely ignored the show cause order and all prior directives, it demonstrated a clear abandonment of its case. The Board rejected any further leniency, noting that the suspension of proceedings had already provided ample opportunity to secure new counsel. Furthermore, the Board clarified that ignoring a show cause order is a direct failure to prosecute, warranting immediate dismissal. Finally, the Board emphasized that maintaining the integrity of government contract dispute proceedings requires enforcing strict compliance with established scheduling orders.

Gilbane-Grunley Joint Venture v. General Services Administration, CBCA 6846, 6847, 7123, 7124, 7240, 7383; Gilbane-Grunley Joint Venture v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7346, 7347, 7384 – May 14, 2026

The first decision addressed the parties’ joint motion for the entry of a stipulated judgment in the Appellant’s favor. The underlying dispute involved six consolidated appeals. The parties agreed to a stipulated award of $8,950,000, which was inclusive of interest under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Additionally, Appellant agreed to waive any right it might have under Board Rule 30 or otherwise to seek an award of attorney fees and expenses.

The Board granted the appeal in part, ordering the respondent to pay the stipulated $8,950,000 in full settlement of the consolidated appeals. Under the Board’s rules, the parties effectively resolved the dispute by stipulating that they would not seek reconsideration, relief from, or appeal of the Board’s entry of judgment. Because the parties formally waived all rights of reconsideration, review, or appeal, the decision finalized the settlement. Furthermore, the Board formalized Appellant’s waiver of any further right to a claim for recovery related to these matters. Finally, the Board entered judgment awarding the stipulated amount.

The second decision similarly addressed the parties’ joint motion requesting the entry of a stipulated judgment in the Appellant’s favor. The underlying dispute involved three additional consolidated appeals between Gilbane-Grunley Joint Venture and the General Services Administration. The parties agreed to a stipulated award of $725,000, inclusive of interest under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Additionally, Appellant agreed to waive any right to seek an award of attorney fees and expenses under Board rules or other authorities.

The Board granted the appeal in part, ordering the respondent to pay the stipulated $725,000 in full settlement of the three appeals. Under the agreement, the parties stipulated that they would not seek reconsideration of, seek relief from, or appeal the Board’s entry of judgment. Because the parties formally waived all rights of review under Board Rules 26, 27, and 28, the settlement was deemed final. Furthermore, the Board clarified that Appellant waived any further right to a claim for recovery in these specific appeals. Finally, the Board entered judgment awarding the stipulated amount to Appellant.

Pertaingber Lawrance Noauh v. Agency for International Development, CBCA 8472, 8473 – May 8, 2026

This decision addressed Appellant Pertaingber Lawrance Noauh’s claims for over $114,000 in back pay for unpaid meal breaks and overtime. The underlying dispute involved consecutive personal services contracts performed by a Liberian citizen for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. Appellant argued that the agency failed to compensate him in accordance with Liberia’s Decent Work Act of 2015, which mandated paid meal breaks and established strict overtime thresholds. Conversely, the agency argued that the claims were extra-contractual, arising solely from foreign labor laws, and that Appellant was barred from receiving overtime pay because he never obtained prior written authorization to work those hours.

The Board granted the appeals in part as to entitlement, reaffirming its jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) because the contracts expressly incorporated local compensation plans that bound the agency to local labor practices. Under the statutory and regulatory framework, the agency was required to compensate Appellant in accordance with local labor laws as soon as they took effect. Because the official work schedule effectively institutionalized the overtime hours by requiring more than eight hours of work per day, the Board found that formal written pre-approval was unnecessary. The Board rejected the agency’s jurisdictional argument, noting that the incorporation of foreign labor laws into the contract did not defeat the Board’s CDA jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Board clarified that the agency could not rely on its own administrative delays in updating its manuals to avoid paying statutorily mandated compensation that had already accrued. Finally, the Board determined that Appellant was entitled to recover damages falling within the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations and ordered further proceedings to calculate quantum.

Venergy Group, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 7915, 8303 – May 7, 2026

This decision addressed Respondent Department of Veterans Affairs’s (VA) motion for permission to release protected documents to the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Department of Justice, and the Small Business Administration for investigatory and enforcement purposes. The underlying dispute involved consolidated appeals governed by a protective order designed to safeguard confidential and commercially sensitive information. Appellant argued that the unrestricted dissemination of these documents raised significant concerns regarding fairness and potential prejudice, suggesting the Board should impose strict limitations. Additionally, Appellant requested that the Board require the VA to identify specific documents to be disclosed and strictly limit their use to official use only.

The Board granted the VA’s request, reaffirming that the existing protective order already contained a caveat permitting the disclosure of protected materials to other federal agencies for official use. Under the Inspector General Act, the Board lacks the statutory authority to preclude an agency from providing documents currently in its possession to its own OIG for audits and investigative functions. Because the protective order already permitted this, the VA did not strictly need the Board’s permission to share the materials. The Board rejected Appellant’s request to impose further conditions, noting it would not require the VA to identify specific documents or otherwise involve the Board in the OIG’s investigation. Furthermore, the Board clarified that Appellant should assume the OIG has access to all materials from these appeals. Finally, the Board amended the protective order’s language to state that official use includes investigatory and enforcement purposes consistent with the receiving agency’s mission, thereby alleviating any concerns VA counsel had regarding potential violations.

AOC Connect, LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8696 - April 28, 2026

This appeal involved a dispute over unpaid invoices and a stop-work order issued by the Department of the Interior on a task order for voice communication services. AOC Connect submitted a claim exceeding $100,000 but failed to certify it, which is a strict requirement under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Despite the lack of certification, the contracting officer issued a final decision denying the claim, prompting AOC Connect to appeal to the Board. The CBCA dismissed the appeal entirely for lack of jurisdiction. The Board reaffirmed that an uncertified claim is legally invalid, meaning the contracting officer lacked the authority to issue a decision on it in the first place. Without a valid claim and a valid contracting officer’s final decision, the Board possesses no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

F.O.G. LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8202, 8203 - April 24, 2026

In this consolidated case, contractor F.O.G. LLC appealed contracting officer decisions regarding a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) contract. F.O.G. sought damages for government payment delays, increased lumber costs, differing site conditions, and issues stemming from the use of bagged concrete. The government moved for summary judgment across all claims. The CBCA granted BLM’s motion in part and denied it in part. The Board granted summary judgment in favor of the government regarding the payment delays (denying CBCA 8202) and the claims for increased lumber costs. However, the Board denied summary judgment on F.O.G.’s claims for differing site conditions and the use of bagged concrete, concluding that material facts remained in dispute regarding whether BLM reversed its decision on the concrete substitution and whether the contractor suffered unreasonable delays as a result.

King & George, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7891-R - April 9, 2026

This decision addressed a motion for reconsideration filed by the General Services Administration (GSA) following a prior Board ruling (CBCA 7891). In the original decision, the Board granted King & George’s appeal, ruling that the GSA improperly took price deductions for staffing shortfalls under a facilities maintenance contract. GSA sought reconsideration, arguing the Board committed clear error by allegedly failing to address two of its arguments. The CBCA denied the motion for reconsideration, reminding the agency that a motion to reconsider is “not a second chance at trying the case” and that previously presented arguments are not valid grounds for such a motion. The Board firmly reiterated its original holding: under the contract’s plain language, staffing shortfalls were not eligible for deductions in the same manner as omitted tasks, and the agency’s proper remedy for a breach of minimum staffing requirements was termination for cause.

Top Level Construction Company v. Department of State, CBCA 8301 - April 8, 2026

Top Level Construction Company sought compensation under two purchase orders for construction work at Camp Alvarado in Kabul, Afghanistan. Following the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the contractor claimed it was entitled to recover costs for equipment, materials, and bank guarantees that were subsequently lost. Deciding the case on the written record, the CBCA granted the appeal in part. The Board ordered the Department of State to pay Top Level $15,896 for the cost of materials associated with the purchase orders, plus applicable CDA interest. The Board, however, denied recovery for the value of the bank guarantee letters, finding that the purchase order terms did not require Top Level to submit original guarantee letters to the government, and the contractor failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had actually done so.

Capital FM (Pvt.) Ltd v. Agency for Global Media, CBCA 8601 - April 8, 2026

This appeal stems from the Agency for Global Media’s (AGM) termination for convenience of a contract awarded to Capital FM (Pvt.) Ltd for FM radio transmission services in Islamabad, Pakistan. A few months after the contract was awarded, AGM terminated the agreement because Capital FM was unable to secure a required “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the Pakistani government, which AGM deemed necessary to proceed. Capital FM appealed the termination, arguing it was an abuse of discretion, and sought over $430,000 in damages for lost profits, unrecovered start-up costs, equipment leases, and employee severance.

The court resolved the appeal under its expedited small claims procedure and ultimately granted the appeal only in part. The Board first determined that AGM’s termination for convenience was not an abuse of discretion, as the agency had legitimate concerns about the stalled NOC process and the risks of illegal broadcasting. Furthermore, the Board denied the majority of Capital FM’s financial claims, noting that well-established government contracting law prohibits the recovery of anticipatory lost profits following a termination for convenience. The Board also found that Capital FM failed to prove that its equipment and facility costs were incurred solely for the AGM contract or could not be mitigated by using them for its other ongoing broadcasting business.

However, the Board did award Capital FM $10,000 for employee severance costs. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), severance costs are allowable if the contractor can demonstrate a legal obligation to pay them. Because Capital FM provided evidence that these specific personnel were hired exclusively for the AGM contract and that it was legally obligated to pay their severance upon the contract’s termination, the Board ordered the agency to pay the $10,000 plus interest.

Brittani Wattiker v. General Services Administration, CBCA 8362 – March 19, 2026

This decision addressed Appellant Brittani Wattiker's motion for reconsideration of the Board's earlier dismissal of Geoffrey Wattiker from the appeal for lack of standing. The underlying dispute involved three contracts with the General Services Administration, for which the contracting officer had issued a final decision addressed solely to Brittani Wattiker as the contractor. Appellant argued that the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) does not preclude the inclusion of other parties alongside the contractor, suggesting that Geoffrey Wattiker could participate as a “petitioner” or be joined under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 19 or 20 due to his financial interest in the outcome. Additionally, Appellant argued the Board was “estopped” from removing Geoffrey Wattiker because the appeal was initially docketed with his name included.

The Board denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming that the CDA is a waiver of sovereign immunity that must be strictly construed. Under the CDA, only a “contractor” (defined strictly as a party to a Federal Government contract) who is in privity of contract with the government can avail themselves of the CDA's appeal provisions. Because Geoffrey Wattiker was never in privity of contract with the Government, he lacked standing. The Board rejected the “petitioner” argument, noting the case was docketed as an appeal and that even for petitions, the CDA only permits a contractor to request a directed decision. Furthermore, the Board clarified that third-party practices like mandatory or permissive joinder under the FRCP are unavailable before contract appeals boards, as a third party's financial interest does not override the CDA's strict jurisdictional limits. Finally, the Board rejected the estoppel argument, emphasizing that the Board acts as a quasi-judicial body and its statutory jurisdiction under the CDA cannot be bargained away or established by clerical docketing.

Stellar J Corporation v. Department of Transportation, CBCA 6987 – March 20, 2026

This appeal involves a contract to design and construct a retaining wall, where payment was based strictly on the wall's surface square footage. The contract provided “For Information Only” quantities (FIOQ) for incidental work like excavation and backfill, which bidders were expected to price indirectly into their square-footage bid. Stellar J suffered a “bid bust” by mistakenly failing to include FIOQ costs in its bid, yet confirmed its price anyway before award. Post-award, Stellar J's design subcontractors exceeded the FIOQ parameters to ensure structural safety, significantly increasing the actual excavation and backfill required. Stellar J sought an equitable adjustment, claiming the FIOQ was an “inaccurate estimate” that caused a cardinal change to the contract.

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals denied the appeal. The Board ruled that FIOQ materials were not separate pay items, and their costs were legally required to be absorbed into the wall's square-footage unit price. The Board rejected the “inaccurate estimate” argument, reasoning that a contractor cannot be misled by an estimate that it completely failed to include in its bid. Furthermore, Stellar J's own designers testified they viewed the FIOQ as minimum safety requirements rather than maximum design constraints. Because the final constructed wall's surface area only increased by 4%, the Board found no cardinal change, concluding the excess quantities were simply the result of the contractor's own design choices and bidding errors.

VSS International v. Department of Transportation, CBCA 8353 - March 5, 2026

This appeal arises from a pavement preservation contract awarded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to VSS International (VSS) for asphalt patching and sealing in Pinnacles National Park. The core dispute centered on the required dimensions for asphalt patches. VSS, through its subcontractor, alleged that FHWA marked repair areas that failed to comply with a contract requirement to extend patches twelve inches beyond the distressed pavement area. VSS argued this resulted in smaller, more numerous patches that caused performance inefficiencies and increased costs, leading VSS to file a claim encompassing breach of contract, changes, differing site conditions, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. FHWA moved for summary judgment on all counts, arguing that the contract gave the contracting officer discretion to determine patch sizes as long as they met the strict minimum baseline dimensions (e.g., 24 or 36 inches) set out in the specifications.

The Board rejected FHWA's interpretation of the contract, noting that applying the minimum dimension rules while ignoring the twelve-inch extension requirement violated fundamental rules of contract interpretation by rendering a specific provision useless or superfluous. Finding FHWA's interpretation unreasonable and noting genuine issues of material fact regarding the specific nonconformity of the patches, the Board denied summary judgment on the breach of contract and changes counts. The Board also denied summary judgment on the good faith and fair dealing count, finding material issues of fact remained regarding whether FHWA intentionally directed non-compliant performance based on its knowledge of how prior contractors had operated. However, the Board granted summary judgment in favor of FHWA on the differing site conditions claim. The Board reasoned that VSS’s allegations concerned the government's directions regarding the sizing of the work rather than actual subsurface, latent, or unusual physical conditions existing at the site, which are strictly required to establish a differing site condition claim. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”)

Michael E. Kelly, et al. v. United States, No. 2024-2042 (Fed. Cir.) - July 17, 2026

Michael Kelly and a group of banking entities under his control appealed a Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing their breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims arising from the 2008 financial crisis. After investing nearly $900 million of their Tier 1 Capital reserves into preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities lost the bulk of that investment when the Federal Housing Finance Agency placed the two enterprises into conservatorship, ultimately forcing several of Kelly's subsidiary banks into receivership. Kelly argued that the six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 was tolled during the pendency of a related class action, Washington Federal v. United States, under the class-action tolling doctrine established in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 2501's limitations period is jurisdictional and therefore not subject to American Pipe tolling. The court reaffirmed that under the Supreme Court's decision in John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, the six-year deadline for filing suit at the Court of Federal Claims cannot be excused on equitable grounds. Because the Supreme Court's later decision in California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities clarified that American Pipe tolling is itself an equitable doctrine, the court held that its own prior decision in Bright v. United States, which had permitted such tolling under Section 2501 on the theory that it was not equitable in nature, had been implicitly overruled. Because Kelly's complaint was filed roughly thirteen years after the claims accrued, and no valid tolling doctrine rescued the filing, the court held the Claims Court properly dismissed the suit as time-barred.

4DD Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. 2024-1996 (Fed. Cir.) - July 16, 202

4DD Holdings sued the government for copyright infringement after a Pentagon effort to link disconnected military health records, known as the DMIX program, ran badly over its software license. The government had licensed TETRA, a data interoperability platform, through reseller Immix Technology, but its contractor made thousands of unauthorized copies while adapting the software for testing and development. By the time the case reached trial, the Court of Federal Claims found the government had exceeded its license by 290,334 processing-core copies and 171,421 user-seat copies, and it awarded 4DD roughly $12.7 million using a hypothetical negotiation rather than 4DD’s own established licensing rates, reasoning that TETRA delivered little value to the government and that a cheaper competing product existed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s basic approach, holding that no rule of law requires a court to import the rates from an existing license agreement into a damages calculation under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) when the licensed use and the infringing use aren’t meaningfully comparable. But the court vacated the award on two grounds. First, the trial court improperly stretched the “book of wisdom” doctrine, which allows courts to use later-developed facts to inform a damages estimate, by relying on the government’s eventual cancellation of the DMIX project even though that cancellation was neither known nor foreseeable at the time the parties would have hypothetically negotiated. Second, the court’s $150,000 award for the unauthorized Studio copies was pegged to the minimum statutory damages available for willful infringement under the Copyright Act, a punitive measure the Federal Circuit held is unavailable against the government under § 1498(b), which permits only compensatory recovery.

The case now heads back to the Court of Federal Claims to redo the damages analysis without treating the program’s cancellation as foreseeable and without importing willfulness-based statutory damages into the government’s tab. The decision is a reminder that a hypothetical negotiation framework gives courts real flexibility in valuing a government copyright infringement, but that flexibility has edges: later events can inform the picture only to the extent they clarify value that already existed at the time of negotiation, and the government’s damages exposure under § 1498(b) tops out at compensatory relief.

Utech, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 24-1586 (Fed. Cir.) - June 24, 2026

Utech filed a post-award bid protest challenging a Department of Veterans Affairs contract for an endoscopy information system. Although Utech did not submit a prime proposal, it protested after its prospective prime contractor was disqualified. Utech alleged the VA executed an out-of-scope cardinal change by expanding the contract from 24 legacy facilities to a national implementation. The Claims Court dismissed the complaint, ruling Utech lacked interested party standing and had waived its challenges under the Blue & Gold Fleet doctrine.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal. It held that Utech lacked statutory standing because it did not submit a bid, noting that an expressed intent to bid on a future resolicitation does not create interested party status. Furthermore, the court determined that any ambiguity regarding the contract’s geographic scope was patent. Because the solicitation contained facially inconsistent provisions, Utech had an affirmative duty to seek clarification before the proposal deadline and completely waived its right to challenge the terms by failing to do so. This decision highlights the rigidity of standing and waiver rules in federal bid protests. Practitioners should advise clients that choosing to act exclusively as a subcontractor eliminates their independent right to protest if their prime contractor is disqualified. Additionally, if a solicitation contains glaringly inconsistent scope requirements, prospective offerors must formally seek clarification or file a pre-award protest before the closing date to preserve their claims.

Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc v. United States, Case No 25-1116 - May 21, 2026

Sergent’s Mechanical Systems appealed a Claims Court decision upholding the Department of Veterans Affairs termination of its contract for default; the contract required the firm to perform asbestos abatement and HVAC work at a medical center; after the contractor confirmed it would not meet the completion deadline the agency terminated the contract; the contractor argued its delay was excusable and that the agency had constructively modified the agreement by voluntarily gathering additional information about asbestos locations.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the government; the appellate court emphasized that the contract unambiguously placed the burden on the contractor to investigate the site and identify the specific asbestos abatement work required rather than relying solely on the government estimates; furthermore the court rejected the contract modification argument noting that the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires contract modifications to be in writing and that there was no evidence of a meeting of the minds to shift asbestos-related responsibilities back to the agency.

Anders Construction, Inc. v. United States (Case No. 24-2247) 

Anders Construction filed a pre-award bid protest challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that its proposal for diving services was technically unacceptable. The agency rejected the proposal because it failed to explicitly include a lost-diver plan and a comprehensive outline of administrative and record-keeping procedures, as demanded by the solicitation. The COFC ruled in favor of Anders, finding the agency’s rejection arbitrary. The COFC reasoned that Anders’s “Severance of Complete Umbilical” plan essentially met the lost-diver plan requirement without needing a specific label, and that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria by demanding a more comprehensive record-keeping outline than what Anders provided. The COFC issued a permanent injunction directing the award to Anders, prompting the government’s appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the COFC’s judgment and vacated the permanent injunction. Emphasizing the broad discretion afforded to procurement officials in technical evaluations, the Federal Circuit found that the Army Corps’ determinations were rational and consistent with the solicitation criteria. The appellate court held that it was reasonable for the agency to penalize the proposal because Anders buried its emergency procedures without explicitly identifying a lost-diver plan, and merely provided a skeletal recitation of the solicitation’s record-keeping requirements rather than a detailed outline. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit noted that the COFC improperly usurped the agency’s role by directing an award to Anders without the Army Corps ever having made the required preliminary determination that Anders’ proposed prices were fair and reasonable.

Global K9 Protection Group, LLC v. United States, Case No. 24-1842 (Fed. Cir.) - May 14, 2026

Global K9 Protection Group filed a bid protest at the COFC challenging a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) contract award to K2 Solutions for canine explosive-detection services. Initially, Global K9 did not allege misrepresentation, and K2 chose to rely on the government’s defense rather than intervene. Later, Global K9 amended its complaint under seal to add material misrepresentation claims against K2, but failed to file a public, redacted version as required by court rules, leaving K2 unaware of the new allegations. The COFC eventually granted an injunction disqualifying K2 from the contract. After learning of the injunction, K2 moved to intervene to contest the findings, but the USPS subsequently terminated K2’s contract for default based partly on the COFC’s misrepresentation ruling. The Claims Court then denied K2’s motion to intervene as moot and untimely, prompting K2’s appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s denial of K2’s motion to intervene. Although the Federal Circuit found the issue was not moot, reasoning that successfully challenging the misrepresentation finding could aid K2 in its separate, ongoing effort to convert its default termination to a termination for convenience, the Court agreed the motion was untimely. The Federal Circuit noted that while Global K9 improperly redacted information and failed to follow public filing rules, K2 was tracking the docket, knew an amended complaint had been filed months prior, and should have inquired further at that time to protect its interests. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prejudice to the existing parties of unwinding the proceedings and relitigating the facts outweighed any potential prejudice to K2.

Anders Construction, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 24-2247 (Fed. Cir.) - May 12, 2026

Anders Construction filed a pre-award bid protest challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that its proposal for diving services was technically unacceptable. The agency rejected the proposal because it failed to explicitly include a lost-diver plan and a comprehensive outline of administrative and record-keeping procedures, as demanded by the solicitation. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of Anders, finding the agency’s rejection arbitrary. The COFC reasoned that Anders’s “Severance of Complete Umbilical” plan essentially met the lost-diver plan requirement without needing a specific label, and that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria by demanding a more comprehensive record-keeping outline than what Anders provided. The COFC issued a permanent injunction directing the award to Anders, prompting the government’s appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the COFC’s judgment and vacated the permanent injunction. Emphasizing the broad discretion afforded to procurement officials in technical evaluations, the Federal Circuit found that the Army Corps’ determinations were rational and consistent with the solicitation criteria. The appellate court held that it was reasonable for the agency to penalize the proposal because Anders buried its emergency procedures without explicitly identifying a lost-diver plan, and merely provided a skeletal recitation of the solicitation’s record-keeping requirements rather than a detailed outline. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit noted that the COFC improperly usurped the agency’s role by directing an award to Anders without the Army Corps ever having made the required preliminary determination that Anders’ proposed prices were fair and reasonable.

Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, Case No. 24-1522 - April 15, 2026

After the General Services Administration (GSA) awarded a 10-year Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) management contract to a competitor, Life Science Logistics, LLC (LSL) filed a bid protest with the GAO. This protest triggered an automatic stay of contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), which can last up to 100 days. Shortly into the stay period, the GSA overrode the stay, citing “urgent and compelling circumstances” to authorize the competitor to begin performance. LSL challenged this override in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), which issued a declaratory judgment that the override was arbitrary and capricious, effectively reinstating the automatic stay without requiring LSL to satisfy the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief. The government appealed, arguing that LSL should have been required to prove the equitable factors because the declaratory judgment had the coercive effect of an injunction. Although the GSA subsequently withdrew the override after the GAO sustained LSL’s protest, which the government argued rendered the dispute moot, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined it retained jurisdiction. The court found that the issue fell under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to mootness. The 100-day maximum duration of a CICA stay makes it inherently evasive of full judicial review, and the highly concentrated nature of the SNS contract market makes it reasonably likely that LSL and the government will inevitably face this exact dispute again.

On the merits, the Federal Circuit affirmed the COFC’s decision. The appellate court held that a bid protestor seeking a declaratory judgment to overturn an agency’s CICA stay override only needs to demonstrate that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court reasoned that CICA establishes an automatic stay as the statutory default upon filing a protest, and nullifying an arbitrary override simply reinstates that statutory default by operation of law. Requiring a protestor to also prove the four traditional equitable injunction factors (such as irreparable harm and public interest) would improperly impose a non-statutory burden and undesirably incentivize the government to issue more stay overrides for arbitrary reasons.

Healthestate, LLC v. United States, No. 2024-1336 (Fed. Cir.) - March 20, 2026

This appeal involves a breach of contract claim by Healthestate (HeS) against the government concerning the use of healthcare software. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment against HeS, ruling that the contractor failed to meet the strict requirements of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Specifically, HeS failed to state a “sum certain” in its demand to the contracting officer, instead requesting open-ended percentages (e.g., 25% to 50% of a related contract's value). The court held this lack of specificity was fatal to the claim because it prevented the contracting officer from being able to settle the dispute with finality.

Furthermore, the court ruled that HeS failed to establish the existence of a valid contract. HeS alleged the government breached an End-User License Agreement (EULA) embedded in the software. However, the court found that the EULA was intentionally hidden and configured not to display to users, meaning no government official with actual contracting authority ever saw or agreed to its terms. Finally, the court held that HeS waived its right to assert a breach of a different, prior government contract because it relied solely on the EULA during the lower court proceedings.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”)

J.A.M. Construction Services, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 63378, 64226, 64439 – June 2, 2026

This decision addressed the government’s motions to dismiss portions of the Appellant's consolidated appeals for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The underlying dispute involved a Navy task order for construction services that was terminated for default, leading to an assessment of over $1.1 million in liquidated damages against the contractor. J.A.M. Construction Services challenged the default termination and the liquidated damages by asserting government-caused excusable delay as an affirmative defense. The government moved to dismiss these delay allegations, arguing that the Board lacked authority to review them because the contractor never submitted a properly certified Contract Disputes Act (CDA) monetary claim specifying a “sum certain” to the contracting officer.

The ASBCA granted the government’s motion to dismiss the monetary claim, but denied the motion to strike the affirmative defense. The Board agreed with the government that the contractor failed to submit a valid monetary claim for the delays because its submissions contained open-ended alternative calculations and completely lacked a specific “sum certain” and proper CDA certification. However, the Board clarified that a contractor does not need to submit a monetary claim for a sum certain when it is strictly asserting government-caused delay as a non-monetary affirmative defense to defeat a government claim, such as a termination for default or an assessment of liquidated damages. Because overturning a default termination carries a significant non-monetary impact, the Board allowed the contractor to proceed with its excusable delay defense to challenge the termination, while formally dismissing any monetary claims tied to those delays.

DSME Construction Co., Ltd., ASBCA No. 63878 - March 13, 2026 

This appeal challenges the government’s default termination of a contract for preventative maintenance services at facilities in the Republic of Korea. The parties opted to proceed under Board Rule 11 without a live hearing. During briefing, the government moved to dismiss the appeal as a sanction after discovering that the appellant's surreply contained 27 false or misleading citations, including 16 citations to non-existent cases. The government identified these non-existent cases as hallmarks of generative artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations, and later identified additional fictitious citations in the appellant’s opening brief.

The appellant subsequently moved to file an amended surreply, apologizing for the inaccuracies which it blamed on a fundamental breakdown in its citation-verification process, without specifically addressing the use of AI. Ultimately, the appellant admitted to referencing ten non-existent cases across three different briefs, attributing them to an unintentional lapse rather than a fraud upon the Board. In response, the government requested that the Board deny the motion to amend and dismiss the appeal with prejudice as a sanction for the fictitious case law.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal entirely. The Board noted that the government failed to address whether the appellant’s conduct was sufficiently contumacious or contemptuous to justify the severest sanction of dismissal. However, citing the appellant’s lack of care and lack of candor regarding how the non-existent cases found their way into the briefing, the Board imposed a lesser sanction. To deter the repetition of such conduct in the future, the Board struck the appellant’s original surreply and denied its motion for leave to file an amended surreply.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA Nos. 63621, et al. - March 10, 2026

Lockheed Martin appealed multiple contracting officer final decisions that disallowed indirect costs and demanded $98 million in repayment. The government alleged that Lockheed breached its contracts by utilizing foreign-flag air and ocean transportation services, thereby violating the Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers (FAA) and Transportation of Supplies by Sea (CPA) clauses. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Lockheed sought a ruling that the clauses do not apply to international shipping charged as indirect costs. Conversely, the government sought a determination that all of Lockheed’s international shipping costs for fiscal years 2016 through 2019 violated the clauses and were therefore unallowable.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied Lockheed’s motion, rejecting its argument that classifying shipping as an indirect cost exempted it from the performance requirements. The Board found the language of both clauses to be unambiguous, emphasizing that compliance is determined by whether the transportation was used to perform work under a contract containing the clause. The Board concluded that Lockheed’s obligations to use available U.S. flag carriers are unrelated to how it accounts for or charges those costs.

The Board also denied the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Despite asserting that Lockheed unequivocally violated the clauses, the government failed to cite specific evidence in the record demonstrating that Lockheed actually used foreign-flag carriers for contract performance without authorization. The Board noted that the government relied on conclusory statements from audit reports rather than factual evidence. Ultimately, the Board reminded the government that as the party claiming a breach of contract, it bears the burden of proving that the costs are unallowable.

CACI International, Inc., ASBCA No. 63663 - March 10, 2026

Both CACI International Inc. and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) filed cross-motions for reconsideration of a May 2025 Board decision. The previous decision held that CACI’s claimed Iraqi litigation costs (arising from the Al Shimari litigation) were not barred by a 2007 settlement agreement between CACI and the Department of the Interior (DOI). In its motion for reconsideration, CACI repeated earlier arguments that its litigation costs under the Alien Tort Statute were generally allowable and introduced new facts regarding recent district court rulings in its favor to argue for cost apportionment. The government argued that the Board erred in its issue preclusion analysis and raised novel theories that the Department of Defense (DoD) could enforce the 2007 DOI settlement as a “successor agency,” “co-obligor,” or third-party beneficiary.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied both motions for reconsideration, emphasizing that such motions do not afford litigants a “second bite at the apple” or the chance to advance new arguments that should have been raised earlier. The Board declined to consider CACI’s new justifications for the allowability of its legal costs and its cost apportionment argument because they were not raised in the original summary judgment briefing. Similarly, the Board rejected the government’s assertions, noting that the government misinterpreted the requirements for issue preclusion by failing to recognize the difference between the direct costs considered by the district court and the indirect overhead costs at issue before the Board. Furthermore, the Board dismissed the government’s new theories regarding the DoD’s status under the DOI settlement agreement as lacking legal authority

Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 64168, 64308, 64310, 64297, 64173 - March 5, 2026

Paragon Defense Solutions requested reconsideration of five separate appeals that were previously denied by the Board under the Small Claims (Expedited) Procedure. The underlying appeals involved various purchase orders and contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) that resulted in lapsed offers, canceled orders, or terminations for default due to Paragon's failure to deliver conforming items, failure to meet delivery deadlines, and the submission of noncompliant counter-offers. In its motions for reconsideration, Paragon largely repeated its initial arguments, claiming that the DLA had waived delivery dates, impliedly accepted nonconforming items through delayed notifications, or acted in bad faith and on pretextual grounds.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied all of Paragon's motions for reconsideration. The Board emphasized that a motion for reconsideration is not an invitation for a party to reargue previously decided issues, get a “second bite at the apple,” or advance arguments it could have presented earlier. Ultimately, the Board concluded that Paragon failed to demonstrate any genuine oversight by the Board that affected the outcome of the appeals, nor did the contractor present any newly discovered evidence to justify modifying the prior decisions.

Group III Mgt., Inc., ASBCA No. 64176 - March 2, 2026

Group III Management, Inc. appealed seeking an 84-day time extension, extended general conditions costs, and the release of liquidated damages under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) construction contract at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. The dispute arose after USACE identified a drainage design defect and subsequently experienced funding delays that postponed the issuance of a bilateral modification (Modification No. P00003) for the revised work. Group III later submitted a certified claim seeking compensation specifically for the delay period during which it had to wait for USACE to issue the funded change order. USACE moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, or alternatively, for summary judgment based on an accord and satisfaction defense.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss. USACE argued the appeal was untimely because the Board did not receive the notice within the statutory 90-day window due to a FedEx courier delivery failure. However, the Board found the appeal timely under the “misdirected appeal” exception, noting that Group III successfully delivered its notice of appeal to the Contracting Officer within 90 days and clearly expressed its intent to appeal to the ASBCA. The Board also rejected the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that Group III had plausibly alleged the necessary elements of a compensable delay: the extent of the delay, a causal link to USACE’s late issuance of the modification, and resulting financial harm.

Finally, the Board denied USACE’s motion for summary judgment regarding its accord and satisfaction defense. USACE argued that the closing statement in Modification No. P00003, which released claims for “all delays related thereto,” barred Group III’s current claim. The Board disagreed, finding that the modification did not unambiguously cover delays related to the issuance of the modification, but rather only covered delays related to performing the drainage-revision work itself. Furthermore, the Board noted that extrinsic evidence, such as the Contracting Officer’s prior written assurance that the funding delay would be treated as a separate issue, raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the parties’ intent, thereby precluding summary judgment.