Bid Protests

Here is a scenario that should keep every proposal manager up at night. You hit “send” on a corrected quote 29 minutes before the contracting officer’s deadline. The agency’s own email security software holds it for 42 minutes and drops it into her inbox 14 minutes late. You win the award anyway. Then the incumbent files a protest, having found the timestamps in the administrative record, and the US Court of Federal Claims (COFC) takes the award away. That is what happened in FYI-For Your Information, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-cv-0032 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 24, 2026), and the lesson is blunt. Late is late, even when the Government’s own server is the reason.

Continue Reading Held at the Gate: COFC Enjoins a DEA Award Because the Agency’s Own Email Filter Made the Winner’s Corrected Quote Late

Two proposals rated Exceptional. Two past performance ratings of Substantial Confidence. A price gap of nearly $15 million between the two offerors. On that record, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did what source selection authorities routinely do. It declared the offerors essentially equal on the non-price factors and awarded to the lower-priced firm. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained the disappointed offeror’s protest, because the past performance findings that made the two firms look equivalent could not bear the weight the agency placed on them. The case is Veros Real Estate Solutions, LLC, B-423965.2, B-423965.3, B-423965.4 (Comp. Gen. July 22, 2026), and it carries an outsize practical lesson: An agency may not credit an offeror with work the offeror did not perform, and it may not paper over a relevancy determination with conclusory adjectives. For contractors competing in best value procurements where technical ratings bunch at the top, the holding warrants close study.

Continue Reading Credit Where Credit Isn’t Due: GAO Sustains Protest Where VA Credited the Awardee for the Government’s Own Work

Peak summer travel season has jet fuel moving by the millions of gallons, so there is a certain irony in a fuel-supply dispute that turned on an email no one at the agency ever opened. A contractor sent its proposal a day early, got an automated message saying the email was delivered, and lost the competition anyway. The agency never saw the bid. That is the short version of Rick Aviation, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-1604 (Fed. Cl. June 17, 2026), a post-award protest recently decided at the Court of Federal Claims. The opinion is a useful—and painful—refresher on what “received” actually means under the Federal Acquisition Regulation and on how little sympathy a court will extend when the offeror caused the problem.

Continue Reading Grounded Before Takeoff: A Cautionary Tale on the “Late-Is-Late” Rule

Half an inch determined the outcome of a $260 million Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) procurement in Joerns Healthcare, LLC v. United States, a bid protest in which the US Court of Federal Claims (COFC) enforced strict compliance with solicitation specifications. The court rejected the contractor’s reliance on industry standards, holding that unambiguous solicitation terms control evaluation outcomes when agencies verify compliance through stated measurement methods. For contractors competing in FAR Part 12 commercial item acquisitions and FAR Part 15 procurements, the decision reinforces that even minimal deviations from express requirements can render a proposal unacceptable.

Continue Reading Half an Inch from a Quarter-Billion: COFC Tells Contractors to Read the Spec, Not the Industry

A 2026 federal executive order reshapes federal procurement policy by directing agencies to use fixed-price contracts as the default under FAR Part 16, while requiring written justification and higher-level approval for cost-reimbursement, time-and-material, and labor-hour contracts. The order also establishes agency approval thresholds, carve-outs for R&D and contingency work, and a phased implementation schedule through OMB guidance and FAR Council rulemaking. For government contractors, the change affects how agencies structure acquisitions, allocate risk, and modify existing and future contracts, with significant implications for federal procurement strategy and compliance in 2026.

Continue Reading Cost-Plus Out. Fixed-Price In.

A contracting officer issues a solicitation amendment on a Friday afternoon, reverses course by Friday evening and demands a revised quotation by noon on Saturday, then changes the requirements again on both Sunday and Monday with a response window of as little as one hour. The agency’s own suggested solution? Ordering a refrigerator manufactured in Turkey, not available for purchase in the United States. If this sounds like a procurement that went off the rails, the GAO agrees.

Continue Reading When “Reasonable” Means More Than a Weekend: GAO Sustains Protest Over Compressed Response Times

As we move into spring—a season for tightening processes, clearing the backlog, and getting every detail right—a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest decision delivers a timely reminder: in government contracting, a single compliance miss can be outcome determinative.

Last month, in Morrish-Wallace Construction, Inc. d/b/a Ryba Marine Construction Co., the GAO sustained a protest where the agency awarded a contract to a bidder that failed to acknowledge a material solicitation amendment. The decision is an instructive case study in why amendment acknowledgment is not just a box to check—it also is a binding legal act.

Continue Reading Spring Cleaning Your Proposals: GAO’s Latest Reminder That Compliance Is Critical

Congress has once again reshaped the protest landscape—this time with a narrow but consequential change targeted squarely at Department of Defense (DoD) procurements. The Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by the president on December 18, 2025, includes a new provision designed to discourage meritless protests at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), particularly where an incumbent contractor continues performing work during the protest. Although the language is focused and does not overhaul the protest system more broadly, it introduces a real financial risk calculus that unsuccessful incumbent offerors will now need to consider before pulling the protest trigger.

Continue Reading Cracking the Kitchen Sink: FY2026 NDAA Brings Bid Protest Reforms for Defense Contractors That Lodge Meritless Protests

Government procurement is essential to modern governance. But when firms rig bids, allocate markets, or otherwise collude, taxpayers pay more, honest competitors are shut out, and trust erodes. In recent months, US agencies have continued to emphasize the importance of fair competition in government procurement, scrutinizing regulations that may favor incumbents or unfairly limit competition and expanding whistleblower options.

Continue Reading Rigging the Game? Antitrust Risks in the Public Contracting Arena

On July 31, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) issued its decision in The DaVinci Company v. United States. The case is noteworthy for contractors grappling with geographical supply chain concerns because it elucidates the extent to which two cornerstone country-of-origin procurement statutes—the Buy American Act (BAA) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA)—can be misunderstood and misapplied by the government.

Continue Reading Making Hay of the Interplay Between the TAA and BAA—COFC Sustains Protest Against the VA’s Improper Sourcing of a Critical Pharmaceutical