Bid Protests Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

Federal Circuit Clarifies “Interested Party” Status in Percipient.ai v. United States

Robyn N. Burrows and Michael Joseph Montalbano ●

When a Federal Circuit panel held that subcontractors had standing to challenge procurement violations, Judge Clevenger warned of a flood. Under the panel’s holding, thousands of subcontractors could inundate the Court of Federal Claims with allegations that agencies had violated applicable procurement laws. Progress on major programs could slow as the Government dealt with a wave of new protest litigants.

On August 28, 2025, the full Federal Circuit reversed course. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing definition of “interested party,” holding that only actual or prospective bidders or offerors with a direct economic interest in the outcome of the procurement may protest.

GAO Sharpens Its Pleading Standard Description: But Did GAO Raise the Bar?

David L. Bodner, Elizabeth N. Jochum, Stephanie M. Harden, and Luke W. Meier ●

In a recent decision, GAO announced that it was clarifying its pleading standard for bid protests. For many years, GAO had described a minimally acceptable protest pleading as one with “either allegations or evidence sufficient” to establish a likelihood of improper agency action. Going forward, as articulated in Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B-423546, B-423546.2, Aug. 5, 2025, 2025 WL 2237333, the standard now calls for “credible allegations that are supported by evidence and are sufficient” to make that showing. GAO linked this revised formulation to a request from Congress in Section 885 of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act to clarify and enhance its pleading standard.

It is not immediately clear whether this means a change in protest practice at GAO. GAO seemed to suggest that the updated language was not a change to the pleading standard itself, but a clarification to better align the stated legal standard with its longstanding stance that “‘bare allegations’ or allegations based upon ‘information and belief’ are not sufficient to meet our pleading standards.” We will be closely watching how GAO applies the standard in its decisions to fully understand the level of evidence required to clear GAO’s pleading standard, and it is likely to remain a heavily fact-specific analysis. Regardless, protesters, as ever, should make sure they substantiate allegations with evidence and awardees should retain counsel to safeguard their interests through effective dismissal requests.

60-Second Sustains: BrightPoint, LLC

Elizabeth N. Jochum and David L. Bodner ●

Protest of: BrightPoint, LLC
B-423392, B-423392.2, B-423392.3

BrightPoint raised numerous challenges to the Department of Agriculture’s evaluation and award of a task order for information technology services.
The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustained one protest ground: that the discriminators identified by the Agency to justify its award decision were based on the awardee’s experience with work unrelated to the anticipated work scope and also possessed and demonstrated by Brightpoint.
In response to this protest ground, the Agency argued “in general terms” that its evaluation was reasonable and equal.
But GAO noted that the Agency did not demonstrate a connection between the Solicitation’s requirements and the positive findings it gave to the awardee’s experience.
The Agency also did not “meaningfully respond” to Brightpoint’s allegations of unequal treatment, stating only that it treated offerors equally.
GAO determined that, but for the discriminators identified in favor of the awardee, Brightpoint might have been selected for award, even at a small price premium.
GAO recommended the Agency reevaluate the prior experience volumes and make a new source selection decision.

FAR on the Chopping Block: Potential Impacts on Protests

Elizabeth N. Jochum and Robyn N. Burrows ●

As those in the federal contracting community wait anxiously for rumored and hinted at changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), we are beginning to evaluate how certain of those changes might most impact our clients. In the first of a series engaging in some mild—or wild, depending on your outlook—speculation about these potential changes, we take a look at how the removal of certain FAR requirements might impact bid protests.

One of the cardinal rules of bid protests is that protests not alleging solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(b). There is a key exception, however—for procurements under which a debriefing is requested. If requested, a debriefing is required, and the initial protest cannot be filed before the debriefing date offered and must be filed no later than 10 days after the debriefing concludes. In other words, a protester’s timeliness clock does not start ticking until the debriefing concludes.

Other Transactions: A Flexible and Efficient Acquisition Tool for the Department of Defense

Scott Arnold and Samarth Barot ●

On March 6, 2025, the Defense Secretary released a memorandum directing the Department of Defense (“DoD”) to adopt the Software Acquisition Pathway (“SWP”) to speed up the development, procurement, and delivery of software needed for weapons and business systems. Specifically, the memorandum directed DoD to use Commercial Solutions Openings and Other Transactions (“OTs”) as the default solicitation and award approaches for acquiring capabilities under the SWP. As a result, we are likely to see an expansion in DoD’s use of OTs. Thus, contractors should be aware of the rules and regulations regarding OTs.

Background

While OTs have been in the news a lot these days, they are not a new concept. OTs date back to 1958, when Congress granted the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) the authority to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements in order to foster innovation and speed in the space race.

60-Second Sustains: TISTA Science and Technology Corporation

Elizabeth N. Jochum and David L. Bodner ●

Protest of: TISTA Science and Technology Corporation
B-422891.2; .3; .4

TISTA challenged the issuance of a task order by the National Institutes of Health to Tantus Technologies, alleging the agency engaged in unequal treatment of the offerors.
The Agency assessed a strength to the awardee for proposing to maintain a “warm bench” of candidates to meet potential surge staffing needs. On the other hand, it assessed a weakness to TISTA for proposing to maintain bench strength with a pool of pre-vetted candidates.
The Agency argued there was a distinction in the proposals in that the awardee’s “warm bench” was made up exclusively of existing employees, while TISTA’s would need to hire surge candidates.
The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) rejected the Agency’s argument, finding that both quotations provided for surge staffing with a mix of existing and yet-to-be-hired employees, and sustained the protester’s allegation of disparate treatment.
GAO similarly found unequal treatment in the Agency’s decision to assign a strength to the awardee for its use of a “master schedule,” when it did not assign a strength to the protester for proposing use of a “master tracker.”

Claims Court Breathes Life into Another Path to Protest OTAs

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

On Monday, February 24, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) released the public version of a February 13 decision declining to dismiss Raytheon Company’s protest of a $648.5 million award under the Missile Defense Agency’s (“MDA”) interceptor development program. Judge Armando O. Bonilla held that the award was within the court’s jurisdiction over Other Transaction Authority agreements (“OTAs”).

Unsuccessful offerors have had difficulty finding a tribunal with jurisdiction over post-award protests involving OTAs. Under COFC and U.S. General Accountability Office (“GAO”) precedent, an offeror’s ability to protest an OTA award is limited. OTAs are not considered procurement contracts. They are considered non-traditional acquisitions usually involving innovative research and development or prototyping services. They are not based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) or Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) and are not subject to the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). Under CICA and the GAO’s Bid Protest Regulations, GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction is limited to protests concerning alleged violations of federal agency procurement statutes or regulations in the award or proposed award of contracts for the procurement of goods and services, and solicitations leading to such awards. Under the COFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction, COFC’s review is limited to protests “in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” Disappointed OTA competitors also have been unsuccessful seeking relief in U.S. Federal District Courts.

60-Second Sustains: The Mission Essential Group

Elizabeth N. Jochum and David L. Bodner ●

The Mission Essential Group
B-422698.2

Mission Essential challenged a task order solicitation issued by the Air Force, alleging the lowest price, technically acceptable (“LPTA”) evaluation scheme violated DFARS 215.101-2-70.
The DFARS provision establishes eight criteria, each of which must be met in order for a solicitation to employ an LPTA methodology.
It also requires that agencies “avoid, to the maximum extent practicable,” the use of LPTA procedures for procurements of “knowledge-based professional services.”
Mission Essential alleged the Air Force failed to meet at least three of the eight criteria allowing for LPTA and that LPTA procedures must be avoided given the type of services sought.
GAO sustained the protest, recommending the Air Force revise the solicitation to comply with DFARS 215.101-2-70 and request revised proposals.

GAO Rejects Notion of a Pre-FPR “Continuous Registration Requirement” for SAM

Luke W. Meier and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The last week saw GAO sustain two protests that should put the nail in the SAM “continuous registration” coffin.

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory (“FAR”) Council recently revised the standard System for Award Management (“SAM”) registration clause (FAR 52.204-7) to make clear there is no “continuous registration requirement”—contractors need to be registered in SAM only at the time they submit their final, legally-binding proposal.

In two recent decisions, GAO has confirmed that the same was (and is) true under the prior version of FAR 52.204-7 as well. That is, if an agency allows an offeror to submit a revised proposal, and the offeror is properly registered in SAM when that final proposal is submitted, it does not matter if there was some SAM registration failure at an earlier stage of the procurement. The offeror is eligible, and it would be unreasonable for an agency to eliminate an offeror or terminate an award based on a pre-FPR SAM flaw.

In UNICA-BPA JV, LLC, B-422580.3, the protester (“UNICA”) had an active SAM registration when it submitted its final revised proposal, but the Agency later eliminated UNICA from the competition based on the fact that UNICA was not registered in SAM at the time of its initial proposal. That was unreasonable, GAO found, because UNICA had in fact met the stated requirement to be registered in SAM “when submitting an offer,” as the FAR defines “offer” as a proposal that can form a binding contract, and that definition applied only to UNICA’s final, legally-binding proposal, which was compliant. GAO thus found the Agency acted unreasonably by eliminating UNICA from the competition and sustained UNICA’s protest.

In Metris LLC, B-422996.2, the Agency proposed to take corrective action to terminate the award to Metris for having a break in its SAM registration between the time of the initial proposal submission and its final proposal submission. GAO found that Metris’s initial proposal was extinguished when Metris submitted – and the Agency accepted – Metris’s final proposal revision. Because Metris was registered in SAM at the time of the final proposal revision, Metris had an active SAM registration when it submitted its offer, in accordance with FAR 52.204-7. GAO thus recommended that the agency abandon its plans to terminate Metris’s contract award, and instead “maintain its existing award to Metris.”

These cases follow the legal reasoning of Hanford Tank Disposition Alliance, LLC v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 269, 312-319 (2024), and should deter agencies from eliminating any more offerors over pre-FPR SAM issues.

Also published in National Law Review at GAO Confirms No Continuous SAM Registration Requirement, January 17, 2025.

Fiscal Year 2024 GAO Protest Statistics: Course Correction from Fiscal Year 2023 Shows Continued Slow Decline in GAO Protests

Luke W. Meier and Shane M. Hannon ●

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released its Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2024 (B-158766), summarizing bid protest activity during the 2024 fiscal year. The FY24 bid protest statistics reflect a continuation of recent trends, and course correction after the FY23 statistics were skewed by the 100+ protests challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ government-wide acquisition contract, the Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 4 (“CIO-SP4”).

Overall, the number of protests is fairly steady, the effectiveness rate remains high (over 50 percent), and hearings are increasingly rare (just one in the last year).

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Background

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: