When an agency conducts a multiple-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) competition, successful awardees often wonder whether they can protest the agency’s award to other companies at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. For over a decade, the answer has been a murky “maybe” with various Court of Federal Claims decisions divided over the issue. But in a precedential September 16, 2026, decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Island Creek Associates, LLC v. United States resolved this split, holding that IDIQ contract awardees lack standing to challenge the IDIQ awards to fellow competitors.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Resolves Court Split Over IDIQ Awardee Standing
Lying Gets You Nowhere: GAO Dismisses Protest Built on Fabricated Facts
In Aim for AdVantage, LLC, GAO dismissed a protest as a sanction after finding that the protester had materially misrepresented the facts underlying its challenge to the rejection of its proposal. The protester claimed it had spent two hours trying to submit its proposal through the agency’s digital portal before the deadline, only to be thwarted by undisclosed system limitations. But a forensic review of the protester’s account activity told a very different story – one in which the protester had not even attempted to access the portal until nearly an hour after the deadline had passed. GAO’s decision to dismiss the protest as a sanction for these misrepresentations serves as a stark warning: fabricating facts in a GAO protest may result in serious consequences.
Continue Reading Lying Gets You Nowhere: GAO Dismisses Protest Built on Fabricated FactsGAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Continue Reading GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved FirmAugust 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: Agency’s Rule of Two Set-Aside Determination Failed on Multiple Fronts
The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series. In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice keeps you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month. Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in LJR Solutions, LLC, B-424487, Aug. 14, 2026, where GAO sustained a small business’s challenge to the National Institutes of Health’s decision not to set aside a procurement for small business concerns.
Continue Reading August 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: Agency’s Rule of Two Set-Aside Determination Failed on Multiple FrontsRecent Court Decision Indicates the “Close at Hand” Doctrine is Alive and Well
The “too close at hand” principle allows GAO or the court to find an evaluation unreasonable where an agency fails to consider past performance information it was aware of – even if that information was not in the offeror’s proposal. The principle originates from GAO’s 1997 decision in International Business Systems, Inc., where GAO sustained a protest after finding that an agency unreasonably failed to consider past performance information that “involved the same agency, the same contracting officer, and virtually the same services” as the procurement at issue. GAO held that “some information is simply too close at hand to require offerors to shoulder the inequities that spring from an agency’s failure to obtain, and consider, the information.” Since that decision, the argument has become a common tool in protesters’ challenges to past performance evaluations, though as discussed in “Bid Protest Pitfalls: Three Commonly Misused Arguments at GAO,” the argument is frequently misused by protesters unfamiliar with GAO’s precedent on the issue.
Continue Reading Recent Court Decision Indicates the “Close at Hand” Doctrine is Alive and WellRecent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” Protests
A recent U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision serves as an important reminder that when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denies a protest, this is not necessarily the end of the road. Often, contractors retain the right to file a new protest at the COFC, which conducts its own de novo review of the procurement record. This so-called “second bite at the apple” protest is a powerful tool as the COFC’s recent decision in Chugach Logistics & Facility Services JV, LLC v. USA makes clear.
In a post-award bid protest involving a nearly $100 million United States Navy Base Operations Support Contract (BOSC), Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC (Chugach) filed a protest at GAO contesting the award of the BOSC to CCS King George 2, LLC (CCS KG). Chugach argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and made a flawed source selection decision. GAO denied the protest. Chugach then filed an action at the COFC. On August 17, 2026, the COFC reached a materially different outcome — sustaining the protest and ordering the Navy to cancel the award.
Continue Reading Recent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” ProtestsJuly 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: Four Reports, Zero Analysis, One Problem – VA’s Past Performance Evaluation Falls Short
The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series. In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice keeps you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month. Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in Veros Real Estate Solutions, LLC, where the VA’s past performance relevancy evaluation unraveled under GAO scrutiny for lacking any meaningful supporting analysis.
Continue Reading July 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: Four Reports, Zero Analysis, One Problem – VA’s Past Performance Evaluation Falls ShortJune 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: GAO Reminds Agencies that Once You’ve Set the Rules, You Have to Play by Them
The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series. In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice keeps you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month. Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in Veterans Management Services, Inc., which provides an important reminder that once an agency sets the rules for the procurement, it must play by them.
Continue Reading June 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: GAO Reminds Agencies that Once You’ve Set the Rules, You Have to Play by ThemCMMC Phase II Suspension Requires Reconsideration of Such Requirements in Solicitations
As discussed in more detail here, the U.S. Department of War (DoW) recently issued a memorandum (Memo 26-P-1023, dated July 13, 2026) directing the immediate suspension of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Phase II requirements (Level I and II self assessments are still permitted). Significantly, the memo directs that “all pending and future CMMC implementation milestones across DoW solicitations and contracts are held in abeyance until further notice.” Moreover, the DoW issued a memorandum on implementing these requirements (available here), directing agencies to issue amendments removing CMMC Level 2 and 3 requirements from active solicitations “as soon as practicable.” Contractors should monitor the government’s compliance with this requirement and should be prepared, if needed, to file a bid protest to protect their rights.
Continue Reading CMMC Phase II Suspension Requires Reconsideration of Such Requirements in SolicitationsRecent Court Decisions Provide Intervention Insights
We recently discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Global K9 Protection Group, LLC v. United States and the importance of intervening in bid protests, especially when an awardee’s interests may diverge from the government’s. Now, a more recent Court of Federal Claims decision, West Pacific-CMCS JV v. United States, provides additional guidance regarding intervention by a contract awardee.
Continue Reading Recent Court Decisions Provide Intervention Insights