top of page

Government Contracting Blog

(See also the articles page of this site)

IN BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT WHERE TECHNICAL IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE/COST, CAN A LOWER TECHNICAL SCORE WIN?

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

BOARDS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER PUBLIC LAW 85-804 CLAIMS FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

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

Failure to Follow Explicit Instructions in a Solicitation

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

HAVE DOJ LAWYERS LOST THE “PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY” IN U.S. COURTS? AND HAVE AGENCY CONTRACT ATTORNEYS LOST IT AS WELL?

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

AGENCY May Use Evaluation Considerations Not in Solicitation where Logically Encompassed Within Stated Evaluation Criteria

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

Was the Agency's CICA Override Merely Arbitrary and Capricious, or Must the Protester Meet the Four Factor Equitable Test for a Preliminary Injunction

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

Government Gamesmanship in Bid Protests is Unacceptable

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

(Not) Good Enough for Government Work

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

Unreasonable Restriction on Final Proposal Revisions

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

Material Difference in Claim Presented to Contracting Officer

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

Dismissal Without Prejudice

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

Volunteers Do Not Get Paid by the Government

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

Failure to Give Notice of Cost Overrun in Time & Materials Contract

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

Sanctions Applied for Artificial Intelligence-type Conduct

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

Speculative Protest Allegations Not Supported by Evidence

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

Adverse Agency Action At the GAO After Agency Level Protest

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

A Company that Cannot Offer a Qualified Product on a Sole Source Procurement is Not an Interested Party to Protest

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

Each Procurement Stands on its Own

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

“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

Don't Be Silent (Abandonment of a GAO Protest)

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 website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2024 Richard D. Lieberman

bottom of page