Stan Hinton

Contact Me
2018 Blog
2017 Blog
2016 Blog
2015 Blog
2014 Blog
2013 Blog
2012 Blog
2011 Blog
2010 Blog
2009 Blog
2008 Blog
2007 Blog
2017 Procurement Review
2016 Procurement Review
2015 Procurement Review
2014 Procurement Review
2013 Procurement Review
2012 Procurement Review
2011 Procurement Review
2010 Procurement Review
2009 Procurement Review
2008 Procurement Review
2007 Procurement Review
Agency Sites
More Agencies

Recent Federal Circuit Protest Decisions (2000-Present)

Click on any case name below to link directly to the decision


Cleveland Assets, LLC v. United States, No. 2017-2113 (Mar. 5, 2018) (affirms COFC's prior decision (i) dismissing one count of preaward protest because it was based on an appropriations act and not a procurement statute and (ii) determining that rental cap in solicitation had rational basis in record)

Strategic Business Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 2017-1418 (Feb. 14, 2018) (nonprecedential; affirms prior decision by Court of Federal Claims that agency had rational basis for rejecting proposal because protester failed in multiple instances to comply with solicitation requirement to submit redacted copies of certain portions of its proposal)

Level 3 Communications, LLC. v. United States, Nos. 2017-1924, 2017-2068 (Jan. 30, 2018) (nonprecedential; reverses prior decision of CoFC sanctioning attorneys for violation of duty of candor to court)


AgustaWestland North America, Inc.  v. United States, No. 2017-1082 (Jan. 23, 2018) (vacates preliminary injunction previously issued by CoFC and reverses prior decision because: (i) Army Order 109-14 was not a procurement decision subject to review; (ii) CoFC abused its discretion by supplementing the administrative record sua sponte (because original record was sufficient for decision); and (iii) sole source J&A for purchase of helicopters of specified vendor was not arbitrary and capricious but had a rational basis)


Continental Service Group, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 2017-2155, et al.  (Jan. 12, 2018) (decision labeled nonprecedential; upholds portion of CoFC's prior bid protest ruling preliminarily enjoining awardees from performing but reverses ruling enjoining agency from transferring work to be performed under protested contract to other contracting vehicles in order to circumvent or moot protest)


Dellew Corp. v. United States, No. 2016-2304 (May 1, 2017) (reverses prior CoFC decision awarding EAJA costs to protester; comments by CoFC judge from the bench not memorialized in order or opinion did not confer "prevailing party" status on protester)

Kevin Diaz v. United States, No. 2016-2501 (Apr. 11, 2017) (affirms prior CoFC decision; protester lacks standing to complain that Government improperly rejected unsolicited proposal because proposal failed to fulfill requirements of FAR 15.603(c) and, thus, protester did not have direct economic interest in procurement, i.e., did not have a substantial chance of receiving a contract)


Guardian Moving Storage Co. v. United States, No. 2015-5132 (Aug. 22, 2016) (nonprecedential; affirms prior CoFC decision; protest against corrective action was based on flawed assumption that protester's proposal was acceptable and that no corrective action was necessary) 

Coast Professional, Inc., et al., v. United States, et al., No. 2015-5077 (July 12, 2016) (reverses prior CoFC decision; award term extensions of FSS task orders were new task orders and, as such, were within CoFC's bid protest jurisdiction)

Per Aarsleff A/S, et al. v. United States, Nos. 2015-5111 (June 23, 2016) (reverses CoFC's prior decision; eligibility requirement in solicitation was ambiguous but was clarified by the Government's answer to a bidder's question which was formally published as an amendment to the solicitation, and, under that clarification, the winning bidder was eligible)

Jay Hymas d/b/a Dosmen Farms v. United States, No. 2014-5150 (Jan. 14, 2016) (reverses CoFC's decision and holds that Department of Interior's Fish & Wildlife Service's cooperative farming agreements with farmers to grow crops on public lands are cooperative agreements rather than procurement contracts and, thus, are not subject to CoFC's Tucker Act protest jurisdiction)


Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 2015-5086 (Oct. 23, 2015) (affirms prior CoFC decision denying protest and upholding agency's decision to undertake corrective action because agency had provided disparate information concerning solicitation's requirements to bidders, misleading one of them)

Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United States, No. 2014-5014 (Sep. 2, 2015) (denies protest because agency there was rational basis for SBA's and OHA's determination of what constituted primary and vital contract requirements and, thus, that awardee was not unduly reliant on subcontractor for those requirements)

Colonial Press International, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5036 (June 10, 2015) (Government Printing Office (“GPO”), as a legislative agency, need not, as part of its bid-evaluation process, refer the responsibility determination to the SBA before declining to award a contract to a small business)

Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5125 (Apr. 20, 2015) (reverses CoFC's prior decision because it lacked jurisdiction over protest by firm that had not first participated in NAICS code appeal at OHA that the protester knew might adversely affect its interests)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5085 (Mar. 12, 2015) (affirms CoFC's prior decisions denying protest, but on different grounds, i.e., that protester's challenge to solicitation's terms was untimely because not "adequately" raised before award; and protester failed to preserve challenge to evaluation on appeal)

CGI Federal Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5143 (Mar. 10, 2015) (reverses CoFC's prior decision in preaward protest and holds  (i) FAR Part 12 applies to RFQ's for commercial item orders made against existing FSS contracts, and (ii) agency violated its prohibition against including contract terms inconsistent with customary commercial practice; protester who did not submit bid, but who submitted timely preaward GAO protest and then promptly (within 3 days) filed suit in CoFC when GAO denied protest, has standing to maintain protest)

Innovation Development Enterprises of America, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5070 (Jan. 12, 2015) (affirms CoFC's prior decision that plaintiff not entitled to bid preparation costs under EAJA because it had not prepared or submitted a proposal)


SRA International, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5050 (Sep. 15, 2014) (under FASA, CoFC lacks jurisdiction over protest of agency's OCI waiver in connection with issuance of task order)

Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5042 (June 3, 2014) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision; Veterans Act of 2006 does not require VA to conduct Rule of Two inquiry before using FSS, so long as it is meeting its overall percentage goals for contracting with VOSBs), reversed by Supreme Court.

CMS Contract Management Services, et al. v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, No. 2013-5093 (Mar. 25, 2014) (reverses prior CoFC decision because HUD's Performance-Based Annual Contribution Contracts are procurement contracts rather than cooperative agreements, and agency acknowledged it did not follow procurement regulations in conduct of solicitation)

Adams and Assocs. v. United States, Nos. 2013-5077, -5080 (Jan. 27, 2014) (affirms CoFC decision that DOL acted within statutory and regulatory authority in setting aside Job Corps procurements for small businesses)


Res-Care, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5035 (Nov. 21, 2013) (affirms CoFC decision that DOL acted within statutory authority in setting aside Job Corps procurement for small businesses)

Croman Corp. v. United States, No. 2012-5138 (July 31, 2013) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because agency had a rational basis to cancel four CLINs in original solicitation and the documentation evidenced an adequate technical/price tradeoff analysis by the SSA)

Glenn Defense Marine (Asia) PTE LTD.v. United States, No. 2012-5125 (June 25, 2013) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because (i) the protester did not allege prejudicial error, (ii) the Past Performance evaluations of the protester and the awardee had a rational basis; and (iii) the best value determination was not arbitrary or capricious)


Orion Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 2012-5062 (Jan. 14, 2013) (although Court of Federal Claims erred in dismissing protest for lack of  standing, it was correct in noting that there was a rational basis for the Government's decision to reject an initial proposal that lacked required subcontractor cost or pricing data because the solicitation stated proposals might be rejected for being incomplete and such data was material to the Government's evaluation)

Evelyn Burney dba Plott Bakery Products, No. 2012-5088 (Dec. 11, 2012) (nonprecedential; affirms CoFC decision that protest against patent errors in solicitation was untimely filed after award and that protester had not met burden of showing evaluation lacked reasonable basis)

COMINT Systems Corporation and, Inc , a Joint Venture v. United States, No. 2012-5039 (Dec. 7,2012) (affirms CoFC decision denying protest because protester waited until after award to challenge solicitation amendment, making protest untimely, and protester did  not establish its evaluation rating was arbitrary or capricious)

Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 2012-5004 (Aug. 24, 2012) (affirms CoFC's decisions that (i) court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1) over awardee's protest against agency's decision to take corrective action in response to earlier GAO protest  and (ii) awardee had standing to file such an action and (iii) the case was ripe for judicial review)

DGR Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5080 (Aug. 2, 2012) (CoFC decision awarding plaintiff EAJA legal fees is reversed because Government's position was substantially justified)

Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5079 (Jan. 4, 2012) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that company that did not file statement of capabilities in response to a published notice of proposed sole source award lacked standing to protest that award)


Turner Construction Co. v. United States, No. 2010-5146 (July 14, 2011) (affirms CoFC's decision mandating reinstatement of original awardee's terminated contract because, since there was no showing that OCI allowed awardee access to competitively useful information, there was no reason for the agency to follow the GAO's recommendation in response to an original protest at the GAO and terminate the awardee's contract)

Allied Technology Group, Inc. v. United States No. 2010-5131 (June 9, 2011) (upholds agency's decision to disqualify protester for taking exceptions to solicitation requirements and to accept awardee's certification of compliance with requirements despite minor exceptions) 

Totolo/King, Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 2010-5037, -5167 (June 6, 2011) (nonprecedential; death of disabled veteran who was source of firm's status as SDVOSB renders appeal moot)

Creation Upgrades, Inc. v. United States, No. 2010-5098 (Apr. 8, 2011) (nonprecedential; Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1) over protests involving the sale of government property)  



PAI Corp. v. United States, No. 2010-5003 (Aug. 5, 2010) (denies claim that agency failed to follow regulations in documenting and mitigating organizational conflict of interest because Contracting Officer reasonably determined after some corrective actions that no "significant" conflict of interest remained)

Resource Conservation Group, LLC v. United States, No. 2009-5091 (Mar. 1, 2010) (jurisdiction of Court of Federal Claims under ADRA, 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1), does not cover nonprocurement protests; 28 U.S.C. 1491(a) gives Court of Claims jurisdiction over claims of breach of implied-in-fact contracts)

Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5076 (Feb. 2010) (affirms CoFC because agency had a rational basis for requiring an integrated financial, acquisition, and asset management system that is currently fully operational within the federal government)


Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc. -- Birmingham v. United States, Nos. 2009-5021, -5022, -5023 (Nov. 17, 2009) (reverses CoFC's decision in favor of protester because of the lower court's flawed analysis of the price realism evaluation)

Labatt Food Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5017 (Aug. 24, 2009) (standing; late proposal)

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5034 (Aug. 10, 2009) (standing requirements for pre-award protest; reverses Court of Federal Claims because there was a rational basis for agency to decide to use an ID/IQ contract to fulfill its requirements)

Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5072, -5073 (May 4, 2009) (reverses Court of Federal Claims; court interference with contract administration; OCI mitigation plan; standard for allowing supplementation of administrative record)

Tip Top Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5183 (Apr. 29, 2009) (Contracting Officer was correct to reject coal as bid bond asset; requirement that surety request substitute bid bond asset)

The Centech Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5031 (Feb. 3, 2009) (affirms Court of Federal Claims dismissal of protest because the protester had not agreed in its proposal to comply with the requirements of the "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause in the solicitation)


CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 2007-5172 (Dec. 30, 2008) (upholds agency's use of bundled hardware and software maintenance requirements in single-provider solicitation)

Distributed Solutions, Inc. and STR, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 2007-5145 (Aug. 28, 2008) (reverses CoFC decision; court has jurisdiction over protest that government improperly abandoned competitive bidding process in favor of allowing current prime contractor to procure services through subs; meaning of "proposed procurement" in the Tucker Act, as revised by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act)

Impresa Construzione Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, No. 2007-5009 (June 27, 2008) (time period for filing application for attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act)


Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, No. 2006-5064 (June 26, 2007) (pre-award protest; duty of protester to protest patent ambiguity in solicitation before bids are due)

Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States, No.  2006-5096, -5117 (June 11, 2007) (Government's "voluntary" corrective action)

Precision Standard, Inc. v. United States, No.  2006-5092  (Apr. 6, 2007)(nonprecedential; approved sources; responsibility determinations; Limitation on Subcontracting clause)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-5066 (Jan. 19, 2007) (nonprecedential; absence of prejudicial error by agency)


Rex Service Corp. v. United States, No. 05-5142 (May 8, 2006) (dismisses post-award protest for lack of standing because protester did not submit an offer)

Blue Dot Energy Co. v. Unites States, No. 05-5058 (May 2, 2006) (nonprecedential; post-award protest; reverses Court of Federal Claims and decides Air Force acted rationally in not setting aside contract for HUBZone award)


CW Government Travel, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-5051 (Dec. 6, 2005) (nonprecedential; whether contract modifications violated CICA)

Conscoop-Consoriza Fra Coperative Di Prod. E. Lavoro v. United States, No. 04-5150 (June 2006) (nonprecedential; untimely offer)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-5008 (Apr. 21, 2005) (substantial chance for award; non-prejudicial errors in agency's evaluation)


PGBA, LLC v. United States, No. 04-5101 (Nov. 11, 2004) (post-award protest; Court of Federal Claims was within its discretion to award plaintiff proposal preparation costs but to withhold injunctive relief)

Norfolk Dredging Co. v. United States, Nos. 04-5040, -5041 (Jul. 7, 2004) (overturns Court of Federal Claims' decision sustaining protest because it erred in concluding that no exception to 46 U.S.C. 292 allowed the awardee to perform the contract)

Galen Medical Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-5113 (May 25, 2004) (post-award protest; affirms Court of Federal claims decision denying protest; protester did not establish "near irrefragable proof" required to show agency bias in post-corrective action evaluations)


Information Technology & Applications Corp. v. United States, No. 02-5048 (Jan. 10, 2003) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because Government's requests for additional information were "clarifications" and not "discussions")


Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. United States, No. 02-5036 (Jul. 26, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because Contracting Officer reasonably concluded that awardee was financially responsible and had resources to perform the contract)

Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5121 (May 3, 2002) (under Supreme Court precedent in Buckhannon decision, protester was not a prevailing party entitled to recovery of legal fees under EAJA where no court decision was ever issued sustaining protest; EAJA does not allow recovery under "catalyst theory")

JWK International Corp. v. United States, No. 01-5091 (Jan. 29, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that Government's decision not to enter into cost discussions with offeror was within its discretion since protester's cost proposal was acceptable)

Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5014 (Jan. 8, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision: contractor lacked standing to contest awarding of sole source contracts because it did not show it had a substantial chance of receiving award, i.e., that it would have been a qualified bidder) 


Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5075 (Aug. 31, 2001) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that statutes and regulations applicable to Postal Service do not prohibit awards of sole source contracts for mail transportation services)

Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force, No. 00-1171 (Aug. 20, 2001) (preliminary decision in case involving constitutionality of DoD price adjustment for SDBs; see Fed. Cir.'s final decision in the case)

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, No. 99-5137 (Jan. 3, 2001) (orders limited discovery--deposition of Contracting Officer--to explain aspects of responsibility determination where protest has raised serious issues concerning same)



OMV Medical, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-5098 (July 18, 2000) (upholds Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest of one award, but vacates decision re another award for further proceedings to determine validity of salary figure comparisons on the basis of which Contracting Officer made award decision)

Advanced Data Concepts Inc. v. United States, No. 99-5064 (June 9, 2000) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because any errors in the solicitation did not prejudice protester's chances of award)

Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States, Nos. 00-5023, -5024 (May 26, 2000) (reverses Court of Federal Claims decision upholding protest; solicitation for ID/IQ contract; pricing evaluation)



This website links to resources on the web concerning government contracting. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Moreover, I do not vouch for the completeness, currency, or accuracy of the sites to which it links. If you have comments, suggestions, or corrections, please email me