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