bid protests

In a recent bid protest decision— Digital Force Technologies, Inc., B-423319 (May 19, 2025), the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) denied a protest of a Small Business Innovation Research (“SBIR”) program Phase III sole source solicitation issued by the Air Force, concluding that the Air Force had properly procured work from a successor-in-interest entity that derives from, extends, or completes efforts under prior SBIR contracts.  Notably, GAO found that a single SBIR-derived component of the overall system to be procured can be a sufficient link to prior SBIR work for an agency to exercise its authority to issue a sole source SBIR Phase III contract.

This decision builds on previous GAO decisions in ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, LLC, B-418765, Aug. 28, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 339 (“ASRC II”)[1] and Toyon Research Corporation, B-409765, Aug. 5, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 235, in which GAO had explained that “it must be evident that the requirements for the second effort incorporated original concepts, findings, ideas, or research results that were generated in the first.”[2] 

This blog post briefly summarizes background on the SBIR program and requirements for Phase III sole source awards, as backdrop to GAO’s findings in Digital Force Technologies.  The post then analyzes particular aspects of GAO’s decision suggesting an expansion of existing case law in this area and concludes with a brief discussion of practical considerations for government contractors.Continue Reading Digital Force Technologies, Inc.:  A “SBIR-Derived Component” Can Be Sufficient For SBIR Phase III

In what has become an annual tradition, this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) — just passed by the Senate and sent to the President for signature — contains a provision addressing bid protests at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).

Likely of greatest interest to contractors is that Section 885 contains language increasing the dollar threshold for protests of task order awards under a Department of Defense indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (“IDIQ”) contract, from $25,000,000 to $35,000,000.  The increased threshold would further limit the universe of task orders that can be protested under DoD IDIQ contracts. 

Section 885 also requires GAO to prepare a “Proposal for Payment of Costs for Certain Government Accountability Office Bid Protests.”  This provision is likely part of the Department of Defense’s years-long campaign to impose a “loser pays” penalty on protesters in an effort to curb what it says is a problem of frivolous protests — even though GAO’s annual bid protest statistics show that the majority of protests result in relief to the protester, as evidenced by an effectiveness rate of 52%.  DoD’s effort has dated back at least to the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA, which included an analogous pilot program proposal. More recently, as discussed in our August 21, 2023, post entitled “Should Bid Protest Losers Pay?” Section 804 of the House-enacted NDAA for Fiscal Year 2024 included a pilot proposal for a “loser pays” program.Continue Reading NDAA Increases Threshold for Task Order Protests and Directs Another Study on Whether Losing Protesters Should Pay

As previously discussed on this blog, the Federal Circuit issued a major decision in June 2024 addressing bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”): Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States.

On September 5, 2024, the United States filed a petition for rehearing of that case — requesting that the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision, either through a rehearing by the same panel or by the full court in an en banc proceeding.  Subsequently, on September 26, 2024, the protester (Percipient) filed an opposition to the petition.  It will be worth watching whether the Federal Circuit grants the government’s petition and, if so, whether any rehearing will result in a change to Percipient.ai’s holdings.Continue Reading Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S.:  Government Requests Reconsideration of Federal Circuit’s Decision on Bid Protest Jurisdiction and Standing

GAO’s recent protest decision in HPI Federal, LLC, B-422583, Aug. 9, 2024, 2024 WL 3823852, highlights the importance of making clear and precise Trade Agreements Act (TAA) compliance certifications when offering products for sale to the U.S. Government.   

  • On the one hand, GAO found that it was unreasonable for an agency to accept an offeror’s certification that certain of its products were “assembled in” a TAA-compliant country as evidence of the product’s TAA compliance.  GAO reasoned that the referenced assembly — which was not described in the proposal — may not satisfy the TAA’s requirement for “substantial transformation” in that country. 
  • In contrast, GAO found that it was reasonable for the agency to accept the same offeror’s certification that other products had a TAA-compliant “country of origin”. 

As these contrasting examples show, offerors should take care to ensure that their certifications are adequate to establish TAA compliance.  A certification falling short of that standard could place an award at risk, and could even render an offeror ineligible for award. Continue Reading Trade Agreements Act Certifications Undergo New Scrutiny

On June 7, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a major decision addressing bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”).  In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the court found that COFC has jurisdiction to hear a protest challenging a matter of contract administration — even where the matter arose in connection with a task order — and articulated a new test for standing applicable to the facts presented in that case. Continue Reading Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S.:  Matters of Contract Administration Can Be Fair Game For COFC Protests, Even When They Involve a Task Order

It’s that time of year again: the House and Senate have each passed their respective version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2024 (“NDAA”) (H.R. 2670, S. 2226).  The NDAA is a “must pass” set of policy programs and discretionary authorizations to fund Department of Defense (“DoD”) operations.  Lawmakers are currently undertaking the arduous process of reconciling these bills, while jockeying to include topics of importance in the final legislation.  The engrossed bills contain a number of significant provisions for defense contractors, technology providers, life science companies and commercial-item contractors – many of which we discuss briefly below and others that we will analyze in more depth in our NDAA series in the coming weeks.  Subscribe to our blog here so that you do not miss these updates.Continue Reading Key Topics to Watch as Congress Works to Fund Next Year’s DoD Budget

On May 10, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision regarding bid protest standing in CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States et al.  In that decision, the court declared previous decisions to no longer be good law and held that the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding the protester to lack standing.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Weighs in on Bid Protest Standing and Departs from Prior Cases

On December 1, 2022, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and NASA published a final rule addressing “Effective Communication Between Government and Industry,” which is aimed at “encourag[ing] communication between Government acquisition personnel and industry.”

The rule adds a paragraph to FAR 1.102-2 that reads as follows:

The Government

… Continue Reading New FAR Provision Aims to Encourage Communication Between Government and Industry