When it comes to federal contracting, there are parts that are very detail-oriented. Countless signatures for countless certifications. We certainly empathize with contractors on this aspect of federal contracting. But just because we are empathetic does not mean that a contractor can ignore such requirements. In a recent decision, Revelations Counseling & Consulting, LLC v. United States, 180 Fed. Cl. 721 (2026), the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) made it very clear: Where the solicitation says sign the certification and include it in the proposal, sign it and include it in the proposal. Anything less and not only should you expect a rejection, the agency is often required to reject the proposal. In this case, the certification was a VA limitations on subcontracting clause that has cropped up multiple times lately in our practice and is an important part of small business contracting. We look at that decision today.
Continue readingCategory Archives: U.S. Court of Federal Claims
“I Could Have Competed” Won’t Cut It: COFC Requires Showing Contractor Could Perform Work if it Wants to Protest Solicitation Terms
You have your eye on a solicitation. You know the work, you know the customer, and you are certain that you would be a front-runner for the award. Then, you learn that the agency is limiting competition for the procurement, and you can no longer compete for the contract. Immediately, you think that the agency must have made a mistake. After all, you were fully prepared to submit a proposal and perform the work. But is believing you could have competed for the contract and won the award enough to satisfy the requirements for filing a bid protest? A recent COFC decision answers this question.
Continue readingImportant Exception to “Size at Initial Offer” Rule Dooms Award to Mentor-Protégé JV
As a general rule, when it comes to compliance with a solicitation’s size standard, what matters is the size of the entity at the time it submits its initial offer per 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a). This is something we’ve seen several times before in other cases. However, that is just the general rule, and there are several exceptions that can change things greatly. Indeed, when it comes to compliance with SBA’s joint venture requirements, we noted earlier this year (in a decision that preceded the one we discuss in this post) and before that such is determined at the time of final proposal revisions as opposed to the initial bid. Recently, a mentor-protégé joint venture learned the hard way via a decision from the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) that the initial offer size rule doesn’t change this requirement. Today, we’ll explore that decision.
Continue readingFederal Circuit Refuses to Apply Stricter Injunctive Relief Test to GAO Stays
We have noted in past posts that, in some cases, it may make sense to protest a solicitation evaluation or award decision at GAO simply to get a stay on the award. This is because, if you meet certain deadlines, a stay of award and performance is automatically placed on the procurement for the duration of the protest. Now, there are circumstances in which an agency can override this stay, but the burden is on the agency to show such an override is necessary. The Federal Circuit confirmed this is the case in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, 172 F.4th 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2026), in which an agency tried to get the higher burden for a preliminary injunction placed on GAO protesters. This decision suggests that agencies may think more carefully about attempting overrides of stays going forward.
Continue readingBridge to Nowhere: COFC Says Incumbents not Guaranteed Bridge Contract During CICA Stay
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 reading2025 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 reading