This blog has repeatedly explained that the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) will not sustain a bid protest even if the agency has violated a Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) requirement, unless there is competitive prejudice.  This means that a protester must demonstrate there was a significant error in the procurement process and prove that, without that error, they had a substantial chance of receiving the award. But what does this mean in the case where an a

When a contracting officer (“CO”) asks an existing contractor for a proposal for additional work and then withdraws that request, the request for proposal (“RFP”) is not a constructive change on the contract.  Walsh Turner Joint Venture II, ASBCA No. 63665, May 8, 2025.  The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dismissed Walsh Turner’s claim because it failed to state a claim. Walsh Turner was awarded a firm-fixed-price contract by the Corps of Engineers for construction

When the government supplies a contractor (such as in a solicitation) with a defective design specification, the government is deemed to have breached an implied warranty that satisfactory contract performance will result from adhering to the specification.  This is known as the “Spearin Doctrine” and arose in the case of United States v. Spearin,  248 U.S. 132 (1918).   If the product or service produced by the contractor is not satisfactory, the government is in breach of t

You may have thought that a small noncompliance in font size of the page number would be ignored in evaluating proposals.  Wrong.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) issued a request for quotations (“RFQ”) for program support to various USDA missions, including farm production and conservation.  But one of the offerors was eliminated from the competition in the initial step of the evaluation because its quotation failed to comply with the RFQ on font size, as explain

Readers of this blog understand that an ambiguity exists in a solicitation or a contract where there are two or more reasonable interpretations of the terms or specifications.  There are two types of possible ambiguities:  patent and latent.  A patent ambiguity exists where the solicitation or contract contains an obvious, gross or glaring error. The contractor is required to raise this ambiguity with the agency when it is discovered.  A latent ambiguity is more subtle, and

The Government Acountability Office (“GAO”) recently held that in a Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Part 8.4 procurement, an agency can reasonably engage in exchanges with only the “best suited” vendor, when the solicitation (an RFQ) indicated that such exchanges might occur.  A Square Group, LLC, B-421792.5, April 11, 2025.  A Square Group (“ASG”) protested the issuance of a task order issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Med

The Armed Services Board recently considered a contractor’s appeal that was submitted more than 90 days after the Contracting Officer’s final decision on the underlying claim.  The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  Logistics and Rental Car SARL, ASBCA No. 63950, April 9, 2025. Logistics was awarded a contract in 2019 by the Marine Corps (“USMC”) for the rental of non-tactical vehicles at Camp Lemonnier, Dijbouti, Africa.  The USMC and Logistics executed a

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recently denied a protest where a company failed to price in its proposal required Contract Line Items Numbers (“CLINs”), and the agency did not request clarifications.  GovTranz, LLC, B-423249. March 25, 2025.  The solicitation (a request for proposals, or “RFP”) was for ground wheelchair transportation services. The solicitation sought ground wheelchair transportation services for patients at a Veterans Affairs Meical Center in A