When an agency conducts discussions with offerors, the offerors must be given the opportunity to revise any aspect of their proposals in their final proposal revisions (“FPR”), including portions of their proposals that were not the subject of discussions. Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 15.307; Imagine One Tech. & Mgmt., Ltd., B–412860.4, B–412860.5, Dec. 9, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶360. However, agencies are permitted to reasonably limit the scope of final proposal revisions

Readers of this column are well aware that contractor must make a valid claim to the contracting officer (“CO”) prior to litigating that claim at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) or a Board of Contract Appeals (“BCA”). Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7103 (a)(1). Only after the CO has issued a final decision on that claim (or failed to issue the decision within a specified time, in which case the claim will be “deemed denied,” id., §7103(f)(5)) can the contractor beg

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), which pertain to government actions brought in either the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), or the Boards of Contract Appeals (“BCA”), includes the following in Rule 12, Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing: 12 (b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsiv

Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty, Acting Chairman of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, recently issued his opinion, Futures, Inc., ASBCA No. 61566, April 16, 2066, concerning a contractor that served as a volunteer, providing services gratis to the United States Government. It is an excellent example of the warning that if a company or a person volunteers to provide something to the government for free, they should not expect to be paid. Below is the Judge’s

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued Caduceus Healthcare, Inc. (“CHI”) a task order under a schedule contract for Surge Support Emergency Response Operations (involving quarantines). The order listed the contract line item number (“CLIN”) for each service provided along with a ceiling price and description. The Contracting Officer denied payment of $147,000 for services rendered because CHI exceeded the contract’s T&M ceiling price without giving requir

Once again, a forum has sanctioned a private party for use of non-existent cases and quoting of non-existent dialogue. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) sanctioned a pro se litigant for its misconduct which possibly resulted from the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in drafting his motions. Decision Regarding Sanctions, Louis J. Blazy v. Dept of State, CBCA 7992, 7993, Feb. 24, 2026. The Board issued appellant seven orders to submit copies of the alleged

As noted in an earlier Blog, “Clarifying Government Accountability Office Pleading Standards” (March 2025), the submission of credible allegations supported by evidence is essential in submitting any GAO protest. The submission of bare speculative assertions will cause a protest to be dismissed. GAO clarified its pleading standard last year, and is now applying it as follows: [Government Accountability Office (“GAO”] Bid Protest Regulations require that protests include a d

The bid protest rules of the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) state that a protest based on something other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 CFR § 21.2(a)(2). The GAO rules further state that if a timely agency-level protest was previously filed, any subsequent protest to GAO must be filed within 10 days of actual

Coulson Aviation protested at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) a sole source contract award by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Forest Service for aerial long term fire retardant (“LTFR”) products and ancillary services to air tanker bases. Coulson Aviation USA, Inc., B-423952, Feb. 4, 2026. After receiving no response to its notice that it intended to award a sole source contract, and citing FAR 6.302-1 (“Only one responsible source and no other suppl

This blog has previously discussed denied protests where the protester has argued that an agency failed to evaluate in accordance with a similar but previous procurement. Now comes Low Voltage Wiring, Ltd., B-423502 et al, Jan. 30, 2026, where the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) denied another protest because the agency reached different conclusions in a related procurement, and the procurements were conducted under different solicitations and were evaluated by diff

“Caveat Mancepts rei publicae,” Latin for “let the contractor for the government beware,” is how Judge Ryan T. Holte of the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) began his opinion in Margaret Abare v. United States, No. 22-171 (Fed. Cl March 19, 2026). The plaintiff, Margaret Abare, was a former mail handler with the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) who filed a complaint alleging discrimination. During settlement discussions that were ordered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Comm

If you protest a procurement at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), it is crucial that you meet all filing deadlines. Providing your comments on the agency report that is submitted by the procuring agency in response to the protest is especially important. The GAO rules state that “[c]omments on the agency report shall be filed within 10 days after the agency has filed the report, except where GAO has granted an extension of time or where GAO has established a shor

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) states that in a procurement by sealed bidding, “after bids are publicly opened, an award will be made…to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids [“IFB”], will be most advantageous…considering only price and price related factors included in the invitation.” FAR 14.101(e). A bid shall be rejected, as stated in FAR 14.404-2, because it: • Fails to conform to the essential requirements of the [IFB] • F

It is rare to see an agency ignore a specific injunctive order of the Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”), and even rarer to see an enforcement action requested and enforcement granted in a government contracting matter. However, Gemini Tech Services v. United States et a l, No. 24-1494 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2026) is such a case. Indeed, Gemini is only one of the total of six reported enforcement actions filed at the CFC in the years 1961-Feb. 2026. Those cases are as follows: Gemi

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) denied a request for reconsideration of a decision dismissing a protest because the protester was not an interested party since there was an “intervening offer, i.e. another offeror in line to receive award if the protest was sustained. GAO held that it would not reconsider the decision because the requesting party failed to show that the original protest decision contained either errors of fact or law or information not previousl

The Department of Interior, National Park Service (“NPS”) issued a sole source notification stating that it intended to issue a purchase order to renew software licenses for an existing human resources platform provided by Government Retirements and Benefits (“GRB”). Economic Systems, Inc. (“Economic Systems”) protested at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) stating that the agency’s decision to limit sources to GRB was unreasonable because it could offer a platform

The Navy issued a solicitation for a Blanket Purchase Agreement (“BPA”) for accepting and filling orders placed by the Navy for parts for maintenance, repair and operations of ship stores, including their operation, with the contractor’s own labor,. The solicitation stated that services/products can be ordered under this BPA,” and also stated that “This BPA does not obligate any funds [but can] be obligated by placement of calls under Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) S

US Pan American Solutions (“US Pan”) moved for reconsideration of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) decision dated April 25, 2025 ( US Pan Am. Sols.,LLC, ASBCA No. 63957, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,814) where the Board dismissed its appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed. US Pan Am. Sols ., ASBCA 63957, August 18, 2025. The appeal was filed 91 days. US Pan contends that its appeal was filed 91 days after the final decision of the contracting officer, but t

Consider the following statements from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B-43546 and B-423456.2, August 5, 2025 decision, with particular attention to the highlighted sentences (references are omitted). The GAO has now clarified its pleading standards as follows: [Protester, Warfighter Focused Logistics, or “WFL”] contends that the agency's evaluation of VMP's quotation was unreasonable. Specifically, the protester alleges VMP [

If you were a health care contractor providing emergency room health care services to a rural hospital, and your government contract ended, would you continue to provide those services despite the fact that the Contracting Officer refused to pay more than $8 million for your submitted and undisputed invoices over a period of 7 months? Tribal Health, LLC (“Tribal”) did so at the Pine Ridge Indian Hospital in order to ensure continued emergency room services because it was the