Won Court of Federal Claims Bid Protest for Defense Contractor

Represented a defense contractor in a Court of Federal Claims bid protest challenging the agency's award of a multi-million dollar Department of Defense procurement. The team developed the administrative record analysis, briefed standing and timeliness against the agency's threshold defenses, and pressed FAR compliance arguments on the merits. The Court's decision in the client's favor restored the contract opportunity and required corrective action by the agency.

The Procurement and Protest Grounds

The protest challenged the agency's source selection following a competitive solicitation for a multi-year DoD program. The client identified specific departures from the stated evaluation criteria, gaps in the agency's contemporaneous documentation, and price reasonableness determinations that the administrative record did not support. The client's competitive position and incumbent contract performance made the irregularities particularly significant for the agency's procurement record.

Issues Briefed at the Court of Federal Claims

The team developed the protest record on an expedited timeline, addressing threshold and merits grounds central to Court of Federal Claims bid protest practice.

• Standing: established the client's interested party status by showing direct economic interest and a substantial chance of award absent the alleged error.
• Timeliness: demonstrated that the protest was filed within the time limits applicable to the disputed agency action under Court of Federal Claims practice.
• FAR Part 15 compliance: identified the agency's departures from stated evaluation criteria, gaps in source selection documentation, and price reasonableness conclusions inconsistent with the administrative record.

Decision and Corrective Action

The Court of Federal Claims ruled for the client on the merits and ordered corrective action by the agency. The decision restored the contract opportunity to the client and required the agency to remediate the source selection deficiencies. The ruling avoided the operational disruption that would have accompanied loss of the multi-year DoD engagement. The matter closed with the contract pathway preserved and the corrective process under judicial oversight.