In an interesting case, the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) ruled that it did not possess jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief, but does possess jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief when there is a material breach by the government. Bryan Ashush JV, ASBCA No. 64037, October 1, 2025. Here is the timeline of the actions on appeal: • August 2, 2023. Ashush was awarded a contract by the Army Corps of Engineers (“Army”) for construction of a life support

A contractor that failed to deliver testing equipment under its contract was terminated for cause, and appealed the termination contending that its failure was beyond its control and not due to its fault or negligence. The Armed Services Board found no facts upon which its nonperformance was excusable, and upheld the termination for cause. Vision Distributors LLC, ASBCA No. 64357, July 17, 2026. Vision received an award for the delivery of three Quaestor 8000 test devices

This blog has pointed out numerous cases where protesters and appellants have cited to fictitious cases in their pleadings (presumably using Artificial Intelligence, or “AI” to generate these citations). The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) and the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) have carefully scrutinized the reasons for these mistakes, and issued warnings or actual sanctions for this action. In a recent case, the Board issued sanctions of the ap

It is rare that the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) finds that offerors in a procurement (especially a simplified acquisition) has established unreasonable response times for changes made by the agency in a solicitation. In Effective Communication Strategies, LLC, B-423393, the GAO found insufficient and unreasonable the response times provided to solicitation amendments and to technical revisions (“TR”) required by the agency. The solicitation in this case was iss

Can an appellant request and obtain a dismissal without prejudice in a Board of Contract Appeals case? The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) answered “yes” in Wolverine Tube, Inc., ASBCA No. 63877, March 26, 2026. Wolverine appealed from a deemed denial of its termination for convenience costs. The government and Wolverine filed a notice that they jointly elected to proceed under Board Rule 11 (Submission Without a Hearing) on the issue of the claimed cos

Our readers know that a claim by a contractor pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) must either receive a final decision by the Contracting Officer (“CO”), or a “deemed denial” of the claim after a period of no decision by the CO, before the claim can be appealed either to a Board of Contract Appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. When a CO has reason to demand funding from a contractor (e.g. for restitution/repayments of overpayments, defective pricing amounts

Government contractors should beware of stopping work on a contract, without a valid reason, which might include but not be limited to a Stop Work Order (FAR 52.242-15), Suspension of Work (FAR 52.242-14) or Delay of Work (FAR 52.242-17) issued by the Contracting Officer (the “CO”). One contractor found out the hard way, see Wild Hare Haulers, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 64442 and 64443, June 26, 2026. Wild Hare failed to win its claim for $55,000 in damages as well as its appeal of the

You submitted your offer (either a bid or a proposal) to the government agency that issued the solicitation. Instead of receiving a contract to sign, you receive a “Notice of Award” from the contracting officer (the only person in the Federal Acquisition Regulation authorized to sign a contract). Do you have a contract or not? The simple answer is “yes,” the notice of award seals the bargain and forms a contract together with your offer. Even if the contracting officer s

The answer to the question posed in the title is “YES” depending on the scores and the price/cost in the proposals. A proposal that was lower in technical and significantly lower in price can be awarded the contract. See Highlight Tech., Inc., B-424060.2 May 22, 2026, a case at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) for a good example. The General Services Administration (“GSA”) issued a request for quotations for enterprise data analytics shared services operations

Part 50 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), Extraordinary Contractual Actions [and the Safety Act] prescribes policies and procedures for “entering into, amending or modifying contracts in order to facilitate the national defense under the extraordinary emergency authority granted by Public Law 85-804 (30 USC 1431-34)” as does its implementing Executive Order 10789, Nov. 14, 1958 (authorizing certain agency heads to exercise the authority of Pub. L. 85-804). The De

The failure to follow explicit instructions in a solicitation is frequently fatal. A contractor recent found out in Bailey’s Premier Services, LLC, B-423066.3, April 15, 2026. The Air Force issued a solicitation for an indefinite delivery, indefinite quality (“IDIQ”) contract for maintenance services in support of the Contractor Field Team (“CFT”) program which provides defense agencies and other federal agencies the ability to rapidly augment existing maintenance using co

It has been well documented that Department of Justice (“DOJ”) attorneys have lost the presumption of regularity in their pleadings and statements before the courts. Frequent arguments have been made that DOJ attorneys skills have declined in the current administration. But this problem is not limited to the DOJ, it seems to include government contract attorneys in federal agencies that litigate contract cases before the Boards of Contract Appeals. A recent case at the Arme

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) frequently criticizes agencies for an evaluation that is conducted on factor(s) not included in the solicitation, and frequently will sustain a protest on this. SupplyCore, Inc., B-434243, April 9, 2026 poses a different scenario, namely, where an agency applies evaluation considerations not expressly outlined in the solicitation. The General Services Administration (“GSA”) issued a solicitation for logistics support services i

Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, No. 2024-1522 (Fed. Cir. April 15, 2026, concerns the automatic “stay” provision in the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”), and an action taken in the Court of Federal Claims by the protester LSL that alleged that the override was unlawful because the agency’s reasoning was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 USC § 706(2), seeking a declaratory judgment or an injunction reimpos

The following is from a decision issued by David A. Tapp, Judge in the Court of Federal Claims, concerning a bid protest, Global Connections to Employment, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-301 (Fed. Cl. April 2, 2026) (internal citations omitted): Zealous advocacy does not license gamesmanship. At 5:03 PM on March 30, 2026, the day the Administrative Record was due in this matter the Government filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending an Agency Administrative Decision. Accordi

It seems that everyone has heard the expression “good enough for government work,” when describing mediocre or merely passable work that is performed by or performed on behalf of the government. However, a recent case at the Court of Federal Claims demonstrates that a requirement in a solicitation that is not met fully should be rewarded with a rejection as “noncompliant with solicitation requirements.” Revelations Counseling and Consulting, LLC v. United States, No. 25-216

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