Losing an award can be quite tough, especially when you are the incumbent on the preceding related contract. Often, a salve for an incumbent contractor’s pain can be a bid protest which may result in a bridge contract to that incumbent for the period of the protest. This actually was a fairly common practice for many years in federal contracting. Consequently, many contractors have interpreted such an incumbent bridge contract as a requirement, not simply a course of dealing. However, the United States Court of Federal Claims has highlighted the harsh reality that the incumbent is absolutely not guaranteed a bridge contract after a bid protest, and the agency may take other actions with the named awardee without violating the stay’s requirements.
Continue readingCategory Archives: U.S. Court of Federal Claims
2025 GAO Bid Protest Report: Numbers Down, Effectiveness Still Even Odds–COFC Shows Increase in Bid Protests
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 readingSBA OHA: On Second Thought, Managing Venturer Must Still be in Charge of JV
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 readingBe Careful, FAR Updates Generally Not Retroactive, Says COFC
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 readingA Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part III)
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 readingA Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part II)
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 readingA Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part 1)
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