Quick Takes

On May 5, 2025, the COFC issued an injuction to the Army to "conduct a new evaluation of the offerors’ initial proposal submissions in accordance with the Solicitation." In September 2025, the Army decided to amend the Solicitation and requested revised proposals. The protestor argued that this decision violated the court order, and the court agreed: "the Court holds that the Army’s actions achieved the same result that the injunction forbade: evaluating altered proposals beyond those included in the initial proposals." Permanent injunction issued.

COFC: Gemini Tech Services LLC v. United States, 24-1494 (Feb 5, 2026)

Agency found protestor's proposal to be non-responsive because the protestor did not include the required documentation for its personnel as part of the offer. Protestor claimed that the proposed personnel was a contractor, not a current employee, so no documentation was required. But the agency and GAO disagreed based on the plain language of the solicitation.

GAO also rejected protestor's claim that the agency needed to refer the protestor's disqualification to the SBA for a Certificate of Competency. But, GAO noted that the agency disqualification was based on the proposal's deficiencies, not on a non-responsibility determination.

Protest denied.

GAO: Salvadorini Consulting, LLC, B-423897 (Jan 22, 2026)

Protestor argued, without any evidence, that an awardee was not a SDVOSB. SBA found that the protestor "utterly fail[ed] to make any specific allegations that [the awardee] is not in compliance with the regulations." Protest denied.

SBA OHA: VSBC PROTEST OF: FAIRFIELD REFRIGERATION & COOLING EQUIPMENT, PROTESTOR RE: J&J MECHANICAL AND CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-463-P (Jan 28, 2026)

GSA sought to purchase "security containers," like it had done for more than 20 years, using commercial procedures under FAR Part 12. But protestor claimed that the product it sold was not commercially available because of some government-specific modifications. GSA's market research suggested otherwise and GAO agreed with the agency, noting that the products were "'of a type' of product sold commercially." Protestor also challenged GSA's inclusion of a liquidated damages clause, but GAO agreed with GSA that the clause was not punitive. Protestor also alleged that the solicitation contained erroneous information (though corrected by the agency), and had ambiguous or conflicting clauses related to hazardous waste and price adjustments. GAO disagreed and said that the clauses were just fine.

GAO: Alpha Safe and Vault, Inc., B-423834.2 (Feb 04, 2026)

Empower AI challenged a decision by HHS to award to Booz Allen Hamilton. On protest, HHS agreed to corrective action. Empower AI requested protest costs, and GAO agreed that HHS should reimburse protest costs because HHS "failed to disclose the agency's preference for an AWS solution" and "the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest allegation," though GAO did not agree with Empower AI's other challenges.

GAO: Empower AI, Inc.--Costs, B-422971.5 (Sep 15, 2025)

On September 22, the contracting officer denied an agency-level protest for a FAR Part 8 purchase order. After some back and forth, on September 30, the CO said "[i]f there is no shutdown [he would] further debrief consistent with [FAR] Part 15.” Except there was a shutdown. Then, on December 1, the CO sent a written debriefing. On December 4, the protestor went to GAO. But, in bad news for the protestor, GAO's view was that, because no formal debrief was actually required under FAR Part 8, the protest window started to run on September 22 (and tolled through the shutdown), not on December 1. And because the protest was untimely, the protest was dismissed.

GAO: The JAAW Group, LLC, B-424133 (Feb 02, 2026)

According to its status update, HHS has informed the Court of Federal Claims that CIO-SP4 is expected to be canceled.

As a result of these efforts, HHS has shifted its focus away from re-evaluation of existing offers, which was the focus of the remand because it anticipates canceling the Chief Information Officer – Solutions and Partners (CIO-SP4) solicitation #75N98121R00001NIH in its entirety.

The agency anticipates that it will complete this process within the next thirty days. The agency further anticipates that the bridge contracts on the current CIO-SP3 contracts will be extended for a period of one year. The United States will update the Court and the parties when this process is completed.

HHS (via COFC): Defendant's Status Report (Jan 30, 2026)

The Defense Intelligence Agency issued a task order proposal request against an IDIQ and indicated that DIA would make an award to the vendor with the "highest technically evaluated proposal with a fair and reasonable price." The entirety of the technical proposal, however, was to be done via an oral presentation. Based on the presentations, DIA made the award to GDIT.

Two other vendors — Amentum Technology Inc. and SOS International LLC (SOSi) — protested the decision. In both cases, the protestors argued that DIA gave GDIT strengths and the protestors weaknesses that were not supported by the audio recording of the oral presentations. For example, DIA dinged SOSi for mentioning a legacy network called CENTRIXS, but GAO couldn't find any mention of CENTRIXS in the recording. Similarly, DIA gave GDIT strengths for its inclusion of "upskilling" but dinged Amentum even though it used the same phrase.

Because GAO concluded that the technical evaluation was not supported by the record, GAO sustained the protest.

GAO: Amentum Technology Inc.; SOS International LLC, B-423898,B-423898.2,B-423898.3,B-423898.4 (Jan 27, 2026)

Previously, Veteran Elevated Solutions appealed the determination of the Small Business Administration that Pelican was a small business and OHA granted the appeal, vacated the decision, and remanded to SBA. Nine months later, SBA still hasn't acted on the remand and Pelican may be performing on a contract it's not even eligible for. Finding that "this matter raises serious concerns," Judge Holleman himself declared Pelican ineligible for award.

SBA OHA: SIZE APPEAL OF: VETERAN ELEVATED SOLUTIONS, LLC, APPELLANT, RE: PELICAN RESIDENCES, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6376 (Jan 27, 2026)

A solicitation for "hazardous waste services" had a two-page limit for a "safety narrative." During proposal revisions, the protestor's safety narrative ended up being four pages, and the agency ignored the new content. As a result, the proposal was deemed unacceptable. On protest, the vendor claimed that the agency made numerous errors that were largely attributable from the proposal going over the limit. Still, GAO found that, while the protestor's "error may have been inadvertent, it does not reflect, as the protester claims, that the firm was misled or confused by the 'evaluation notice.'" And because the proposal went over the page limit, the protest was denied.

GAO: Landscape Management System, Inc., B-423523.5,B-423523.6 (Jan 23, 2026)