Global K9 Protection Group, LLC v. United States, Nos. 23-210, 23-311 (Dec. 27, 2023) (allows supplementation of the administrative record with declarations on the issue of whether the challenged firm made material misrepresentations in its bid because those documents are necessary for effective judicial review of the protest allegations; awardee made materially false statements about its past performance that the agency relied on in making its award decision; Contracting Officer's post hoc conclusion that knowing of the misrepresentations would not have changed the outcome of the evaluation is arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider important aspects of the issue; injunction disqualifies awardee from further performance in this procurement; protester already disqualified from the competition due to an OCI has no standing to participate in this protest, even though it has appealed its disqualification to the CAFC and is awaiting a decision)

Syneren Technologies Corp., et al. v. United States, Nos. 23-1112, et al. (Dec. 20, 2023) (unsuccessful protests of agency's new awards based on reevaluations of proposals following prior CoFC protest decision; agency was not required to seek remand from the court before undertaking voluntary corrective action, especially where plaintiffs did not allege any prejudice from the remand and would have the same complaints whether or not the corrective action were the result of a remand; corrective action was not procedurally defective and is not objectionable merely because it reached the same conclusions as the original evaluation; three of the plaintiffs cannot establish prejudice because flaws in their proposals (which court already determined were rationally evaluated) made them unawardable; the agency followed the court's prior decision in conducted a rational reevaluation, and, therefore, there was no breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; challenges by individual protesters to various parts of their individual reevaluations are denied because agency had rational basis for each of its conclusions)

Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. v. United States No. 23-913 (Dec. 19, 2023)  

Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. v. United States No. 23-913 (Dec. 19, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest seeking preliminary injunction; although plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its OCI allegations due to the absence of documents in the record showing any adequate investigation of the issue by the Contracting Officer, no preliminary injunction because protester has failed to establish irreparable harm when solicitation did not guarantee that any awards would be made, especially "when the harm facing the United States as a result of an injunction is potential loss of life or serious injury to law enforcement officials")

Fluor Federal Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1013, 23-1118 (Dec. 19, 2023) (protests that agency should have utilized a multiple- versus a single-award BPA and that agency should have considered past performance outside the period stated in the solicitation are both untimely under Blue & Gold Fleet; remainder of protester's challenges to evaluation are "mere disagreements with the Agency’s discretionary determinations")

Togiak Management Services, LLC v. United States, No. 23-1728 (Dec. 18, 2023) (successful protest against rejection of bids as nonresponsive due to the fact that the submitted bonds were photocopied; court rejects line of GAO decisions on which agency relied as precedent)

Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1571 C (Dec. 14, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest of solicitation for contract to build ships; rational bases for (a) agency's assignment of significant strength to awardee's proposed production facilities (despite the fact that they had not yet been built) and (b) agency's evaluation of production risk of awardee's proposed production approach; agency could not have taken into account risk to schedule of additional vessels awardee had been contracted to build by another agency because the contract option awarding this work had not been exercised at the time of the evaluation; agency was not required to assign schedule risk under multiple evaluation factors and accounting for it as a production risk was reasonable; agency's decision to evaluate awardee's past performance as it improved over time (rather than giving more weight to earlier problems) was reasonable; agency's evaluation of awardee's price proposal was reasonable; agency's decision to consider production line item pricing as a group rather than individually had rational basis, which vitiated protester's argument that two individual line items suffered from unbalanced pricing; because agency found no unbalanced pricing, it was not required to conduct a pricing risk analysis; rational bases for Government's evaluation of various challenged aspects of protester's proposal; responsibility determination of awardee reasonably relied on, and was limited to, standard sources of information for such reviews; although awardee's certification in compliance with FAR 52.209-5(a)(1)(C) was inaccurate  in failing to mention an Australian judicial proceeding, the inaccuracy did not rise to the level of a material misrepresentation considering the findings in that proceeding; agency conducted reasonable investigation of allegation of an OCI involving the awardee's employment of former agency official, finding that no unauthorized person had access to significant sensitive source selection information and that even if the former employee had previously had access to  non-public proprietary information, it was unlikely he had retained it or that it would still be competitively useful in the contested solicitation, which was issued three years later)

LS3, LLC v. United States, No. 23-1392 (Dec. 14, 2023) (unsuccessful protest of SBA OHA's determination that firm did not qualify as SDVOSB joint venture because the non SDV member could exercise negative control through its position on the joint venture's management committee)

Scott Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1155 (Dec. 13, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency record is sufficient to show agency evaluated self-identified risks of awardee's proposal, and agency was not required to document its evaluation of specific risk elements to the level of detail advocated by protester; interpreted in the context of the solicitation as a whole, evaluation subfactor allowed agency to reward awardee for exceeding required production output (delivery requirements); discussions should be individually tailored, so fact that discussions with offerors were not identical does not mean they were unequal or resulted in disparate treatment;  court will not substitute its judgment for agency's and, merely on the basis of the protester's highlighting its proposals' alleged merits to the court, assign the protester a strength where the agency did not do so, especially in an area where the awardee did not receive a strength either)

Greystones Consulting Group, LLC v. United States, No. (Dec. 4, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; in solicitation for data management software agency did not utilize unstated evaluation criterion but relied on common industry definition of evaluation term that other offerors understood and took into account in preparing their proposals; plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence supporting its contention that solicitation contained ambiguous terminology; agency did not evaluate proposals disparately--it rejected three other offers for providing the same solution the agency objected to in plaintiff's proposal)

Myriddian, LLC v. United States, No. 23-1113 C (Nov. 20, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; awardee's plan to use (key personnel) Medical Director part time, supplemented by Associate Medical Director working full time was permitted by the solicitation and, besides, the agency had considered the risks associated with this approach;  solicitation's vague requirement that undergraduate degree of Program Director should be relevant to contract purpose was sufficiently broad that undergraduate major in psychology was acceptable; agency adequately considered differences in ratings in proposals in other areas of staffing and technical considerations)

A. Prentice Ray and Assocs., LLC v. United States, No. 23-1635 C (Nov. 15, 2023)  (unsuccessful post-award protest for preliminary injunction; price realism analysis could include (i) limited use of IGCE and (ii) comparisons of one year of each offeror's unburdened labor costs; agency's determination that two offerors' unburdened labor costs were reasonable despite being lower than those of other offerors had rational basis)

Noble Supply & Logistics LLC v. United States, No. 23-1116 (Nov. 15, 2023) (unsuccessful preaward protest; in solicitation for commercial items under FAR Part 12, agency had rational basis for obtaining a waiver to depart from ordinary commercial practice and requiring contractors to pass on any prompt payment discounts they received to the Government)

CeleraPro, LLC v. United States, No. 23-cv-808 (Nov. 14, 2023) (unsuccessful challenge to proposed award of sole-source task order to the holder of an existing single-award, IDIQ contract contract as a modification to that contract; plaintiff has standing to challenge 8(a) set-aside even though it is not 8(a) because element of challenge is whether solicitation was properly limited to 8(a) firms and it could compete for award if it were not so limited; contract mod was within scope of original contract because that contract adequately advised offerors of the possibility of such a change and the mod did not substantially change the type of work, performance period, and costs as between the original contract and the modified contract so CICA was not implicated by the modification)

Navarre Corp. v. United States, No. 22-1027 (Nov. 8, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rejects protester's contention that solicitation contained definitive responsibility criterion concerning financial responsibility; agency's conclusion that awardee was financially responsible had a rational basis, and bankruptcy materials not available to agency at the time it made that determination were not relevant to the protest but were a matter of contract administration; protester did not provide evidence for its assertion that agency had misevaluated quotes or treated competitors disparately)

BWhit Infrastructure Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 23-813 C (Oct. 31, 2023) (unsuccessful protest against agency's corrective action in response to prior GAO protest; rational basis for agency's decision to cancel award to plaintiff and amend solicitation to eliminate ambiguities and account for updated agency requirements resulting from delays caused by original GAO protest)

Karthik Consulting, LLC, v. United States, No. 23-944 (Oct. 25, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency's determination that firm was ineligible for an 8(a) task order award under MAS contract had rational basis, i.e., (i) the firm had already graduated from the 8(a) program before the task order solicitation was issued; (ii) its status as an 8(a) firm at the beginning of the MAS contract was irrelevant because that contract was not set aside for 8(a) firms; and (iii) the task order solicitation was limited to 8(a) firms)

Unison Software, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-335 C (Oct. 25, 2023) (an unsuccessful protest; no jurisdiction over protests in connection with issuance of task or delivery order under $25 million that does not increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued; other actions of which plaintiff complains are not procurements)

Bear Mountainside Realty LLC v. United States, No. 23-457 (Oct. 12, 2023) (unsuccessful protest against cancellation of solicitation; although emails of some individual agency employees evidenced animus against protester, insufficient proof to establish bad faith motivation for agency's cancellation)

Purpose Built Families Foundation, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1252 (Oct. 12, 2023) (VA's Supportive Services for Veterans Families program awards to non-profits are grant agreements over which court lacks bid protest jurisdiction)

Sparksoft Corp. v. United States, No. 23-708 C (Oct. 11, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Contracting Officer did not ignore weaknesses identified by TEP in awardee's proposal; agency properly considered superior relevancy of incumbent's prior experience on the contract; agency properly considered awardee's proposed staff under the appropriate evaluation factor and its staffing plan under another; other complaints against evaluation rejected)

Systems Dynamics Int'l, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-431 (Oct 6, 2023) (successful post-award protest; awardee's failure to meet solicitation's material, minimum education requirements for multiple proposed personnel was a "deficiency" that rendered the proposal ineligible for award under the definitions in the solicitation)

Rotair Aerospace Corp. v. United States, No. 23-0688 (Oct. 2, 2023) (denies motion for stay pending appeal of court's earlier order denying motion to supplement administrative record because that order was not a "final decision" that could be appealed, did not include a "controlling question of law," and is not final under the collateral order doctrine)

Rotair Aerospace Corp. v. United States, No. 23-0688 (Oct. 2, 2023) (denies protester's motion to complete administrative record with documents not considered by the agency in making the decision to conduct sole source procurement challenged by the protester; denies request for depositions because not necessary to decide the protest)

Consolidated Safety Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-521 C (Sep. 22, 2023) (successful preaward protest against NAICS code chosen by Contracting Officer and previously affirmed by OHA; no rational basis for assigning NAICS Code 541620 ("Environmental Consulting Services:) as opposed to NAICS 541715 ("Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)") proposed by plaintiff when solicitation contemplates research and development)

MC2 Sabtech Holdings, Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1582 (Sep. 14, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rational basis for agency's determination that item being procured is commercial product under definition in FAR 2.101)

Air Borealis Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 22-1554 C (Sep. 6, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest in solicitation for fixed-wing airlift support services to transport personnel and cargo across the North Warning System in the Canadian Arctic; agency had rational basis for concluding that, although lengthy, protester's transition plan lacked the details required by the solicitation, and the agency did not evaluate the transition plans of the protester and awardee disparately; although evaluation of protester's zone coverage proposal was flawed, the protester was not prejudiced because there were valid reasons for disqualifying proposal due to deficiencies in transition plan; under Blue & Gold Fleet, protester failed to timely protest role of Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) in "endorsing" the apparently successful Canadian offeror; agency's actions in obtaining CCC endorsement and running contract payments through CCC complied with applicable DFARS regulation (225.870-3(b)))

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, No. 23-680 (Aug, 31, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rational basis for agency's decision to give protester low confidence rating for its technical approach and assign it risk for reduced capacity because protester failed to explain why its staffing proposal was less than the agency's staffing estimate; arbitrary and capricious for agency to assign a separate "Decreases Confidence" rating for protester's failure to include a QA role because the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem" (protester's substitution of a QA specialist with a full-stack developer allowed the proposed team to perform the SOO’s required automated regression testing and other QA tasks); although rational basis to assign "Decreases Confidence" to protester's proposal for failure to utilize current employees as key personnel, agency did not apply that same standard to other proposals; latter two errors did not prejudice protester (i.e., would not change final outcome))

Paradyme Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-936 (Aug. 31, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rational basis for agency's conclusion that awardee's revised mitigation plan for alleged impaired objectivity OCI related to task to recommend test tools was adequate in that it assigned the evaluation work to firewalled subcontractors and removed the awardee's own products from those to be evaluated; Contracting Officer had rational basis for determining OCI was not a "significant" one under FAR 9.506(b))

TekSynap Corp. v. United States, No. 23-36 C (Aug. 30, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; allows supplementation of record with depositions necessary for review of protester's material misrepresentation claim; use of phrase "Proposal Manager" rather than "Program Manager" on one of awardee's key personnel resumes was a typographical error, not a misrepresentation; statement that President would step down to perform as program manager once contract was awarded was not misrepresentation but was accurate description of awardee's intent; protest of methodology agency used to conduct price realism evaluation does not demonstrate that the Agency failed to take account of relevant information, relied on irrational assumptions, or made critical miscalculations; agency did not mislead protester during discussions by revealing that certain of its proposed rates appeared too low; agency did not conduct unequal discussions with competitors)

DigiFlight, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-348 (Aug. 30, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester failed to support its contentions that agency failed to assign various strengths to its proposal, expecting the court to reevaluate on its own; DFARS debriefing requirement that protester claims agency violated was not adopted until after solicitation issued and was not made retroactive; evaluated technical differences between competing proposals was significant, which left price as the least important evaluation factor; regulations concerning BPAs did not render successful offeror ineligible for award)

Syneren Technologies Corp., et al. v. United States Nos. 23-1112, et al. (August 29, 2023) (denies applications of three consultants working for one of protesters for admission to protective order in bid protest because record and issues raised by protester are not sufficiently technical as to require review by expert consultants in order to effectively represent protester's position)

The Kace Co., LLC v. United States, No. 23-387 C (Aug. 23, 2023) (unsuccessful preaward protest against rejection of revised proposal submitted minutes late via email during corrective action, the "otherwise successful offer" exception being unavailable )

Piedmont Propulsion Systems, LLC v. United States, No. 23-330 (Aug. 21, 2023) (successful preaward protest; requirement that awardee be either OEM or licensed by the OEM to supply the contract items unduly restricts competition because agency did not know what benefits licensing provided and did not obtain information from the OEM clearly indicating licensing was required to meet agency's minimum needs)

Rotair Aerospace Corp. v. United States, No. 23-0688 (Aug. 16, 2023) (in preaward protest against proposed sole-source contract, denies plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record with prior contracts and specifications relating to the manufacture of the arm assembly being procured for the Apache military helicopter because those documents are not necessary for judicial review of protest)

Bear Mountainside Realty LLC v. United States, No. 23-447 (Aug. 16, 2023) (in protest challenging cancellation of lease procurement, grants portions of plaintiff's request to further supplement the administrative record because prior documents received by plaintiff in discovery could be evidence of the agency's animus toward plaintiff and the pretextual basis for the concellation)

AccelGov, LLC v. United States, Nos. 23-693, 23-720 (Aug. 8, 2023) (court has jurisdiction over challenges to intended corrective action without waiting to see corrective action's results)

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. Unites States, No. 23-563 (July 21, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; plaintiff filed suit within reasonable time after learning of basis so suit is not barred by laches; agency properly documented every step in its evaluation; agency applied evaluation criteria intrinsic to announced factors, not unstated factors; rational bases for agency's assignment of weaknesses to protester's proposal)

PredictiveIQ LLC v. United States, No. 23-545 (July 21, 2023)  (in SBIR procurement contemplating multiple awards, each award is a separate procurement under FAR and, thus, agency did not violate CICA by staying only awards that related to GAO protest; agency preserved funding for the awards protested at the GAO in case plaintiff were to win there, thus eliminating the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff; alleged competitive disadvantage too speculative to constitute irreparable harm), plaintiff's motion for reconsideration denied

AccelGov, LLC and SI-Markon JV, LLC  v. United States, Nos. 693 C , 720 C (July 20, 2023) (denies Government's motion to dismiss consolidated protests based on Government's intention to take corrective action because Government's proposed corrective action is only vaguely described and does not clearly moot plaintiff's concerns)

KPMG LLP v. United States, No. 22-866 (July 19, 2023) (successful post-award protest; when offeror learned, after proposal submission, but prior to award, that one proposed key personnel intended to resign and notified the agency of this fact while continuing to attempt to change the employee's mind, the situation did not constitute the unavailability of that individual that would render proposal unacceptable)

CACI, Inc.--Federal v. United States, No. 23-324 C (July 19, 2023) (unsuccessful protest; rational bases for both agency's process of investigating conflict of interest, notifying protester of its concerns and permitting it to respond, and decision to bar plaintiff from competition due to unfair competitive advantage stemming from protester's use of a former agency official involved with the program to help prepare its offer)

Vectrus-J&J Facilities Support, LLC v. United States, No. 23-300 (July 10, 2023) (protest of decision not to expand scope of corrective action in response to agency protest; awardee did not make misrepresentations concerning contents and status of novation issues at the time it submitted its proposal; agency properly credited company with past performance and experience of firm that became awardee's subsidiary only after the projects that were credited to the awardee had transpired; nothing in regulations prohibits agency from treating firm as predecessor of awardee or fromconsidering its projects as reasonably predictive under evaluation scheme; conclusion that predecessor's contracts are reasonably predictive of awardee's ability to perform the current contract reasonably  based on finding that predecessor had transferred its assets and nearly all employees involved in performing those contracts to awardee; no prejudice to protester from scope of second corrective action)

Bear Mountainside Realty LLC v. United States, No. 23-457 (July 7, 2023) (allows limited supplementation of administrative record with documents obtained through FOIA concerning allegation that IRS official acted with bad faith and bias in influencing GSA to cancel lease solicitation)

Bitscopic, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-cv-94 (July 5, 2023) (protest of SOW and J&A for proposed procurement of brand name clinical surveillance software as violating the Nonmanufacturer Rule and the SBA Rule of Two is dismissed as moot because the agency decided to discontinue the procurement; because procurements for the software will always be governed by the VA Rule of Two, since there are multiple VOSB and SDVOSB resellers that can supply it, plaintiff, which is not a VOSB or SDVOSB lacks standing to complain of any one such procurement, much less to allege that the agency is prohibited from acquiring a certain manufacturer's software in all such future procurements, which is what it alleged)

Samsara, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-361 (June 23, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; awardee's participation in prior pilot program was like an incumbent's prior performance of contract which does not give rise to an OCI and does not require Government to neutralize advantages gained thereby;  no unequal access to information OCI because other competitors had access to public information that was adequate to address solicitation requirement; agency took reasonable steps to mitigate any competitive advantage resulting from participation in pilot program; mere fact that some selection officials had participated  in prior pilot program insufficient to establish they were tainted by bias in absence of clear evidence of impaired objectivity; assignment of weakness to protester's proposal regarding cable not required until after award was not use of unstated evaluation criteria because agency could, and did, evaluate proposed approach for developing cable; agency did not apply unstated evaluation criteria in assigning weakness for lack of FedRAMP authorization because, although it was not required at time of award, solicitation contemplated agency would compare FedRAMP status against SOW requirements; according to solicitation agency was not required to disclose weaknesses to offeror but discussions would only relate to additional information needed by the agency)

Aspire Therapy Services & Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-253 (June 13, 2023) (successful preaward protest against elimination of protester from competition; agency should have asked for clarification under FAR 15.306(a) for clerical error when labor hours listed on two different spreadsheets in protester's proposal did not match, especially where clarification would not substantially affect overall price or rating of proposal)

Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1571 C (June 12, 2023) (post-award protest; denies protester's motion for additional briefing and to supplement administrative record based on indictment of, and SEC complaint against, former executives of awardee filed about six weeks after briefing in current protest was complete because protest is to be evaluated based on administrative record in existence at time of protest)

Thalin, LLC v. United States, No. 22-1811 (June 7, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency correctly found protester failed to comply with material solicitation requirement to describe, inter alia, the percentage and type of work to be provided by its mentor; although agency failed to document why the SSEB kept the protester's rating in the Staffing subfactor of the Technical evaluation as Acceptable despite deleting all four weaknesses the original evaluators had found, protester did not establish prejudice from this error; SSA rationally evaluated competing proposals in making final source selection decision)

VSolvit, LLC v. United States, No. 22-1913 (June 7, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; reading solicitations as a whole, single reference to "offeror's team" in solicitation did not mean Government was required to include subcontractors when evaluating offeror's experience; any ambiguity on that point was patent and protest would be untimely; protester cannot establish prejudice from ambiguity because remedy would be to allow it to submit revised proposal which would not be compliant because it lacks required experience absent its subcontractors; rational bases for agency's assignment of four other weaknesses to aspects of protester's technical proposal; price evaluation was conducted in accordance with procedures announced in solicitation and did not constitute improper price realism analysis)

Allicent Technology, LLC, et al. v. United States, Nos. 22-1380 C, et al. (June 2, 2023) (consolidated post-award protests by nine plaintiffs against various aspects of evaluation that had resulted in 15 contract awards; four of nine protests merit requiring agency to re-evaluate aspects of technical proposals), plaintiff's motion for reconsideration denied

SEKRI, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-778 (June 1, 2023) (denies claim for attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant acted in bad faith and that a causal connection between the defendant’s supposed misconduct and the plaintiff’s requested fees and expenses exists; 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA) unambiguously bars tax-exempt organizations employing more than 500 people from receiving attorney’s fees and expenses, and plaintiff failed to offer any proof it met the employee test;  requests for Rule 11 sanctions against defendant's filings are untimely (filed a month after case closed) and lacking proof that challenged filings were filed for an improper purpose or without factual support)

STG Int'l, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 23-47 C, 23-175 C (May 24, 2023) (successful protest of elimination from competition; Phase 1 proposal was not an offer because it could not be accepted to form a contract, and, therefore, requirement for SAM registration did not apply until offer subsequently submitted; rejects other protester's challenges to price and past performance evaluations and conduct of discussions)

Myriddian, LLC v. United States, No. 23-443 (May 23, 2023) (successful post-award protest; awardee's proposal failed to comply with material solicitation requirement (FAR 52.204-7(b)(1)) because its SAM registration lapsed for a period of time after it submitted its proposal and before award was made (even though its registration was effective both on the date the proposal was submitted and the date when award was made)

Konecranes Nuclear Equipment & Services, LLC  v. United States, No. 22-873 (May 16, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; requirement listed in statement of work but not in evaluation factors is not to be evaluated; rational basis for agency's price reasonableness analysis (comparison of prices to IGCE); agency's responsibility determinations did not treat offerors unequally because they were situated differently and thus could not have had identical procedures followed in making the determinations)

SH Synergy, LLC and VCH Partners, LLC  v. United States, Nos. 22-cv-1466, 22-cv-1468 (consolidated) (Apr. 28, 2023) (successful preaward protests; solicitation violates 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) by applying the same evaluation criteria to projects submitted by protégé firms and other offerors alike; agency's decision to exclude price as evaluation factor at the IDIQ level (and use it only for individual task or delivery orders) violates 41 U.S.C 3306 (c)(3) because the contemplated orders are not predominantly based on hourly rates (i.e., time-and-materials or labor-hour contracts)

Golden IT, LLC v. United States, No. 22-1471 (Apr. 6, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; although protester established  agency made several errors in Phase 1 experience evaluation and Phase 2 technical submission, it was not prejudiced because even if the errors were corrected, its price proposal would be lower rated than those of all offerors selected for award)

DigiFlight, Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1521 C (Apr. 19, 2023) (successful post-award protest; agency failed to conduct rational price realism analysis required by solicitation because (a) assuming that two offerors would not both propose unrealistically low prices was irrational, (b) no documentation in the record of the use of the price analysis tool the agency claimed to have employed, (c) no evidence in record to support agency's conclusion that all three offerors' pricing demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements, and (d) conclusion that level of effort and labor mix proposed by offerors was realistic lacked rational basis because that conclusion did not involve any analysis of proposed pricing; by failing to perform required qualitative comparison of technical proposals, Government converted best value procurement into lowest price technically acceptable competition)

Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-28 C (Apr. 7, 2023) (court has bid protest jurisdiction over allegation that, post award, Government violated the requirement in 10 U.S.C. § 3453(b)(1)-(2) that defense agencies and their contractors must acquire commercial products to the maximum extent practicable), vacated by unpublished court order

Toni and Vin Hooper Property Management, LLC dba Hoover Properties v. United States, No. 22-309 (Apr. 6, 2023) (successful post-award protest; in solicitation for leased property, Government failed to document basis for, and substantiate, evaluation of tenant improvement costs for protester and awardee and protester has established prejudice from this deficiency in the evaluation)

Defense Integrated Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 23-64 C (Apr. 5, 2023) (SBA OHA's interpretation, on remand, of the meaning of 13 C.F.R. § 125.18(b)(2)(ii)(A) is reasonable and is entitled to deference; specifically an SDVOSB joint venture agreement may provide that a non-managing partner must approve (or may veto) claim and litigation decisions)

Cahaba Safeguard Administrators, LLC v. United States, No. 22-1057 (Mar. 30, 2023) (unsuccessful protest against corrective action; upon remand following protest, agency's reconsideration memorandum was a new decision (even though it reached same conclusion as agency's original corrective action decision) and, therefore, was not limited to same reasoning in agency's original corrective action decision; new decision had rational basis; decision to cancel solicitation did not prejudice original awardee because there was rational basis for decision and original awardee will be permitted to compete; decision to open new solicitation to original and new offerors is not beyond scope of reasonable corrective action, which is within discretion of agency, especially given agency's conclusions regarding multiple defects in original solicitation)

J.E. McAmis, Inc. v. United States No. 22-570 (Mar. 27, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; court lacks jurisdiction to review SBA's affirmative COC finding) 

Trace Systems Inc. v. United States, No. 22-404 C (Mar. 14, 2023) (unsuccessful protest against agency's decision to cancel procurement after initially undertaking corrective action in response to prior protest; agency's decision had rational bases in the record, especially when considered as a group: (i) an appearance of an OCI involving multiple offerors, including the plaintiff; (ii) redundant evaluation criteria that needed to be revised; and (iii) changes in the agency's requirements; plaintiff lacked standing to challenge extension of bridge contract pending issuance of new solicitation because it presented no evidence it was capable of performing the bridge contract work as of the date that contract was awarded; lack of evidence of bad faith animus by the agency toward the protester (the original awardee))

Vectrus Services A/S v. United  States, No. 22-633 C (Mar. 14, 2023) (unsuccessful protest involving complex questions of interpretation; applicable standards for interpreting the terms of international agreements, treaties, and diplomatic correspondence, as well as practical construction and the course of conduct of the signatory countries, required the agency to restrict the competition in such a way that  plaintiff was ineligible for award, and, therefore, such restrictions did not violate CICA)   

SEKRI, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-778 (Mar. 13, 2023) (successful preaward protest; agency is enjoined from procuring less than 100% of its requirements from the sole qualified AbilityOne provider of the contract items and from seeking a way to procure 50% of its requirements from another source; claim seeking enforcement of set price for disputed AbilityOne items is not ripe because regulations establish procedure for AbilityOne to periodically adjust such prices and resolve disputes over them)

Harmonia Holdings Group. LLC v. United States, No. 19-674 (Mar. 10, 2023) (solicitation amendments issued after offers were submitted affected only staffing plans and corresponding sections of price proposals and did not materially affect offerors' technical proposals so agency was not required to permit amendments to those proposals, especially where procurement not conducted pursuant to FAR Part 15 procedures)

mLINQS, LLC v United States, No. 22-1351 (Mar. 6, 2023) (protest challenging cancellation of solicitation filed 10 months after cancellation was not foreclosed by Blue & Gold Fleet or otherwise untimely because reasons for cancellation were not apparent, leaving protester with impression that it could be reinstated once PIA investigation was concluded; FASA task order bar did not apply here because protester was challenging adequacy of agency's actions to conduct market research and to comply with SBA's rules for deciding whether to set-aside procurement rather than the solicitation, itself; after appropriate Rule of Two analysis concluded there were not two small businesses capable of performing requirement, agency was not required to conduct a new Rule of Two analysis before changing procurement vehicles the very next year; agency conducted adequate market research to determine whether satisfactory commercial solution was available; cancellation of solicitation was within Contracting Officer's discretion because of PIA investigation and agency's decision to add licensing requirements before bids had been received)

IXI Technology Electronic Warfare, LLC, dba IXI EW v. United States, No. 21-1490 (Feb. 28, 2023) (decision to cancel solicitation made while taking corrective action on prior protest, while "triggered" by prior protest, nevertheless had rational basis in the record based on agency's requirements, assuming as court must, that agency acted in good faith)

AccelGov, LLC. v. United States, No. 22-1433 (Feb. 17, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; court will not address protester's standing on each of its protest grounds individually, but finds it has standing on protest as a whole; rational basis for Government's evaluating a weakness where protester's proposal either failed to address certain elements of PWS or merely parroted provisions of solicitation; assignment of weakness to protester's phase-in plan lacked rational basis; agency treated offerors differently in only one of 10 areas complained of by protester; even if the agency had not made the two errors noted above and had disqualified the awardee for the material misrepresentation alleged by the protester, the protester still would have received its "marginal" rating, would not have been selected for award, and, therefore, cannot show prejudice)

Thalle/Nicholson Joint Venture v. United States, No. 22-755 (Feb. 15, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; although JV had standing to challenge Government's determination that it was ineligible for award due to its failure to register in SAM database, the solicitation required the offeror to be registered in SAM and the plaintiff only supplied evidence that each of the JV members was individually registered; fact that Government failed to notice the problem until after discussions were concluded (and, therefore, did not raise the issue during discussions) did not prejudice plaintiff because registration requirement had to be completed at time of initial proposal submission)

Abacus Technology Corp. and Valdez Int'l Corp. v. United States, Nos. 22-388, 22-453 (Feb. 10, 2023) (unsuccessful consolidated preaward protests against elimination of plaintiffs from advancing to Step 2 phase in multi-step competition; plaintiff/incumbent lacks standing on its claims that the agency the incumbent/protester lacked standing on its claims that the agency had unauthorized communications with some offerors concerning their past performance in a later state of the procurement and should have provided protester with more detailed preaward debriefing because at the time each of these events occurred, plaintiff was no longer under consideration for award; other protester's total evaluated price was so much higher than any proposal taken to next step of procurement and its ranking so much lower than those who advanced, it does not have standing to protest; agency was not required to advance any specific number of proposals to the Step 2;  agency was not required to evaluate additional proposals when some of those that made the original cut were found to have correctable errors; communications with some offerors concerning past performance in Step 2, even if they constituted improper discussions, did not prejudice protester because it already had been eliminated from the competition on the basis of price alone; evaluation of professional compensation packages had a rational basis even though it was not exhaustively documented; agency's erroneous disclosure of labor categories used by incumbent/protest on prior contract did not constitute Procurement Integrity Act violation because (i) it was the agency that made the mistake and (ii) the information was contract performance data, not contractor bid and proposal information; amount of information provided by agency to protester in preaward debriefing complied with the FAR's requirement)

KOAM Eng'g Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 22-816 C (Feb. 10, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Government is not required to undertake separate investigation "appearance of a conflict of interest" separate from investigation of "actual conflict of interest"; rational basis in multiple results of detailed investigation conducted by Contracting Officer that there was no personal conflict of interest involving married couple, including the steps they took to avoid it, unchallenged declarations that no improper disclosure of information had occurred; lack of participation in solicitation preparation and evaluation process by individual in question; and relative unimportance of the data alleged to have been disclosed)

Michael Stapleton Assocs., et al. v. United States, Nos. 22-573, 22-620, 22-630 (Feb.3, 2023) (generally affirms prior order regarding preaward bid protests under which Postal Service would phase out company and prohibit its future performance as a result of organizational conflict of interest that tainted solicitations)

Next Phase Solutions and Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-46 C (Feb. 2, 2023) (unsuccessful post-award protest; solicitation required offerors to provide specific approach to meeting its requirements, rather than "analysis of alternatives" proposed by protester; "analysis of alternatives" was a task for contractor after award; protester's proposed price was closest to IGCE only because agency had made a mistake in calculating its IGCE)

ARxIUM, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-407 C (Jan. 24, 2023) (determines quantum of bid and proposal costs owed to contractor following prior protest; contractor cannot recover employees' costs or attorneys' fees incurred after injunction entered in original protest when no new proposal was then submitted; no recovery for lost opportunity costs)

Eagle Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 22-738 (Jan. 13, 2022) (unsuccessful post-award protest; denies protester's motion to amend its Complaint because filing motion was unduly delayed through the protester's own lack of diligence in discovering the basis for its proposed amendment; Government was not required to evaluate a factor in awarding BPA that was not mentioned in the evaluation factors for award, and, if there were an ambiguity concerning the evaluation factor, it was patent, and, therefore, protest had been waived; agency did not use the disputed evaluation factor in evaluating awardee and, therefore, did not treat bidders unequally)

Garrett Electronics, Inc. v. United States, No. 22-cv-807 (Jan. 10, 2023) (unsuccessful protest; under highly deferential standard that court must use to evaluate corrective action, agency's decision to solicit revised proposals rather than simply to reevaluate had a rational basis; agency's decision to take additional corrective action had rational basis; agency treated offerors equally in conducting corrective action by communicating to each the significant areas of weakness in its proposal; protester offered no evidence to support its contention that awardee learned of its price during corrective action)