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

Can the President (normally through the Office of Management and Budget—"OMB”) use a pocket rescission in order to withhold budget authority (funding) for government contracts and other government expenditures without Congressional consideration of a rescission proposal? The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) says this procedure is unlawful, however, to date, the Supreme Court has allowed it to happen in the Trump administration, albeit only with an Emergency Ruling th

Once again, a manufacturer ran afoul of Part 13 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation by failing to understand how purchase orders operate in federal procurement. Warfighter Defense, Inc., ASBCA No. 63924, July 16, 2025. Warfighter failed to understand that its actions in failing to accept a purchase order (“PO”) from the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”), either in writing or by substantial performance, meant that there was no contract between the company and DLA, and no r

In a cost-plus fixed fee contract, where the Agency’s actual requirements are substantially lower than the Agency’s initial estimated hours, is the contractor entitled to its full fee? This issue was recently explored in an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) case, Vectrus Sys. Corp ., ASBCA Nos. 62685, 62949. Vectrus contended that its fixed fee represents the agreed-upon profit, but the Agency alleged that it was only obligated to pay for actual contractor

This blog recently discussed the danger of using Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) improperly to write briefs and pleadings at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”). See “ The Danger of Using Artificial Intelligence Improperly ,”| Oct 13, 2025, which demonstrated how the GAO was sanctioning attorneys who misused AI. Now comes the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA" or “Board”) which criticized a brief that “hallucinated” fictitious cases and imposed sanctio

When a contractor brings an appeal of a claim to a Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”), it is the contractor’s responsibility of the Appellant to establish Board jurisdiction. Board jurisdiction derives from 41 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(1)(A) which confers jurisdiction to decide an appeal from a decision of a contracting officer relative to a contract made by that department or agency. Peace Ambition Const. Co., ASBCA Nos. 63938, 64024, July 10, 2025. Peace Construction provides a

Appellant Chizoma Onyems is the sole owner of a limited liability company, CB Portable Toilet Rental and Service. He is not a licensed attorney. His company contracted with the government to provide services at Camp Lejeune. After the contract was terminated for convenience, CB Portable (the company) submitted a certified claim, and then appealed it to the Board, where Mr. Onyems represented the company. The Board granted $16,000 in damages (plus interest) to CB Portable.

GE Renewables US, LLC (“GE”) sought in its appeal a declaration that it had the right to pursue a price adjustment in a contract that contained an economic price adjustment (“EPA”) clause. GE Renewables US, LLC, ASBCA No. 63842, June 24, 2025. The only significant consequence of such a declaration would be a price adjustment (not a change in contract performance or the avoidance of costs) and the Board deemed the claim a “monetary claim” which required a statement of a “su

In a bid protest issued in July 2025, a Court of Federal Claims Judge issued a scathing criticism of a Navy evaluation of offers for a mixed procurement to provide Egypt with a Nationwide Maritime Surveillance system via a foreign military sale. Advanced Tech. Sys. Co. v. United States, (Fed. Cl. No. 25-515), July 16, 2025. Judge Somers said that the Navy used “vague and conflicting past performance criteria [and failed] to provide any explanation for the award decision it