Category Archives: U.S. Court of Federal Claims

2025 GAO Bid Protest Report: Numbers Down, Effectiveness Still Even Odds–COFC Shows Increase in Bid Protests

Posted on by

In just a few days the ball will drop on 2025 and we will officially usher in the new year. It’s always a good time for reflecting on the past year and what lies ahead for the new year. And that same sort of review is important when thinking about federal contract bid protests. With that in mind, we are going to take a look at the GAO’s Bid Protest Annual Report. This report is GAO’s summary of bid protests for the previous fiscal year. It contains some important insights for how GAO bid protest numbers have changed from prior years. But as our readers know, many bid protests are filed at the Court of Federal Claims, so this is only one part of the overall bid protest picture.

Here are some key points from this year:

  • The key effectiveness metric, showing numbers of sustains and corrective actions at GAO, was similar to prior years, and exactly the same as 2024, at 52% for the 2025 fiscal year.
  • Total bid protest numbers were down for the second year in a row, coming in at 1688 new cases filed (a 6% decrease from the prior fiscal year).

Below, we dive into the GAO numbers while comparing to the data we have on COFC protests.

Continue reading →

SBA OHA: On Second Thought, Managing Venturer Must Still be in Charge of JV

Posted on by

A few months back, we discussed a case at SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals that took a closer look at the actions that a Non-Managing Venturer in a small business joint venture is permitted to have negative control over—that is, those actions which the Non-Managing Venturer’s disapproval can block from happening. It also addressed what happens when a joint venture agreement does not include all of the provisions that the SBA rules require for a mentor-protégé joint venture agreement under the SBA’s Mentor-Protégé Program to avoid affiliation. Following that decision, the matter was brought to the Court of Federal Claims. Below, we discuss Multimedia Environmental Compliance Group JV v. United States, 178 Fed. Cl. 129 (2025) which covers the COFC’s review of the OHA decision. 

That case reaffirmed that just having required control language in a JV isn’t enough, other provisions in the JVA cannot give inordinate control to the Non-Managing Venturer.

Continue reading →

Be Careful, FAR Updates Generally Not Retroactive, Says COFC

Posted on by

The United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) produced another decision focused on SAM registration and related FAR updates. We previously discussed the changes to the FAR no longer requiring constant SAM registration to be awarded a contract. We have also blogged on a recent COFC decision regarding solicitation amendments based on the new FAR rule. But, what happens if the old FAR rule, such as one regarding SAM registration, is still in a solicitation and the agency does not amend the solicitation?

Continue reading →

A Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part III)

Posted on by

For a few weeks now, we have looked at a recent Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision in two parts regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In the first part, we observed how insistence on the terms of a contract is not a breach of good faith and fair dealing. In the second part, we discussed several separate considerations ranging from a decision to not move a project forward to the next phase to rejection of a claim of a government cabal. Now, we will conclude our look at this decision with the court’s review of the SBIR/STTR policy directive and its impact on the case.

Continue reading →

A Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part II)

Posted on by

Recently, we looked at part of a Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In that post, we observed how, unsurprisingly, the government’s insistence that a contractor carry out the express terms of a contract is not strong ground for a claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this post, we’re going to continue our review of this case (with regards to the duty of good faith and fair dealing) and give more general thoughts on this duty. We’ll finish up with a third post that addresses the biggest issue in this case.

Continue reading →

A Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part 1)

Posted on by

The duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law is, admittedly, a bit poorly named. It does not require that a party act in bad faith to breach it. You do not need to act nefariously to run afoul of it. But then the question arises: What is it? How does one breach it? This was (among other things) a question explored in a recent Court of Federal Claims decision regarding an Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract. We will look at that decision’s review of the duty of good faith and fair dealing here in a 2-part series.

Continue reading →

No Protesting Canceled Contracts, Says COFC

Posted on by

Often contractors will protest an award, then learn that the contract at issue was cancelled by the government due to corrective action. When that occurs, contractors of course feel as if their concerns were not resolved, or the protested other parties were let off the proverbial hook. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently explained that if that happens, there is no procurement left to protest, even if there are related research and development projects or actions continuing within the Government.

Continue reading →