Insights

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.

GAO’s recent dismissal of the protest in Tyonek Technical Innovations, LLC, B-424364, B-424364.2, June 30, 2026, carries an important lesson for government contractors: if you believe solicitation terms conflict with a statute or regulation, you must raise that challenge before proposals are due—not during discussions or afterwards.

In a significant decision for government contractors, on April 15, 2026, in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that bid protesters challenging an agency’s override of an automatic stay of contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) need not satisfy the demanding four-factor test traditionally required for preliminary injunctive relief.  In so doing, the Federal Circuit clarified that CICA stay override challenges need only demonstrate that the override decision was arbitrary and capricious—nothing more.

GAO’s key personnel rule is well-known—and often a source of frustration— amongst government contractors.  Proposed key personnel who become “unavailable” prior to contract award—especially where they have accepted employment with a different company—may doom an offeror’s proposal by rendering it noncompliant with solicitation requirements.  But GAO’s recent decision in FYI – For Your Information, Inc., B-423774, B-423774.2 (Dec. 19, 2025) provides some potential relief from that rule. 

GAO’s recent sustain of the protest filed by emissary LLC provides valuable lessons for potential offerors with respect to organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plans (and their impact on technical approach), as well as their descriptions of key personnel qualifications.

On August 7, 2025, the FAR Council issued a final rule amending FAR 52.204-7 to clarify that, effective immediately, an offeror’s failure to maintain continuous System for Award Management (SAM) registration between proposal submission and contract award does not render the offeror ineligible for award, so long as the offeror was registered in SAM at the time of proposal submission and is registered at the time of contract award. The final rule should address situations like TLS Joint Venture, LLC, B-422275, Apr. 1, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 74, where an offeror’s SAM registration lapsed for a single day between the proposal submission and award dates, and GAO found the offeror ineligible for award.

On May 7, 2025, GAO issued a decision in Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, B-423447, warning the bid protest bar that artificial intelligence (“AI”)-based tools utilized without proper oversight may result in severe consequences, including dismissal of the protest and sanctions.

On February 24, 2025, in Raytheon Company v. United States, Judge Bonilla of the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) submitted the latest—and perhaps most definitive—entry in a growing body of jurisprudence confirming the CFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction encompasses challenges to awards made under the Department of Defense’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) authority. Upon establishing a framework for considering its ability to review OTA awards, the CFC declared itself “the de facto forum for bid protests involving ‘other transactions’ and ‘other transaction agreements.’” 

In MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) held that the provisions of FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 (collectively, the “PLA mandate”), which required the use of project labor agreements (“PLAs”) on large-scale federal construction projects valued above or at a certain threshold, violated the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). As we previously reported here, former-President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 in February 2022, instructing federal agencies to require construction contractors and subcontractors on projects valued at $35 million or more to “agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to” a PLA. A few months later, the FAR Council promulgated a final rule implementing the executive order in FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34. 

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, aimed at ensuring U.S. foreign assistance is “fully aligned” with the administration’s foreign policy goals. The Order called for an immediate 90-day pause on all foreign development assistance, applicable to all assistance funding for foreign countries, NGOs, international organizations, and federal contractors.

Mandatory climate disclosures for US federal contractors are officially off the table—at least, for the foreseeable future.  On January 10, 2025, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced that they are withdrawing a proposed rule, “Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk,” which would have required thousands of federal contractors to inventory and publicly disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would also have required  “major” contractors to also establish and validate GHG emission-reduction targets tailored to the goals of the Paris Agreement.  The proposed rule, discussed in further detail here, was introduced in November 2022 and resulted in thousands of public comments from the government contractor community and beyond. 

 On November 12, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will issue an interim rule amending FAR 52.204-7 to clarify that an offeror’s failure to maintain System for Award Management (SAM) registration during the period between proposal submission and contract award does not render the offeror ineligible for award.  Providing welcome relief to agencies and contractors alike, the interim rule requires only that an offeror be registered in SAM at the time of offer submission and at the time of contract award.

The term “bid protest” typically calls to mind challenges to an agency’s award of a contract.  But two recent GAO sustain decisions—Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc., B-422670, Sept. 25, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 230 and MAXIMUS Federal Services, Inc., B-422676, Sept. 16, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 222—highlight another impactful tool for protecting a contractor’s ability to compete fairly: pre-award challenges to ambiguous or unreasonably restrictive solicitation terms.

For the first time in nearly a decade, GAO in Knudsen Systems, Inc. sustained a protest challenging an agency’s decision to set aside a procurement for small businesses.  The decision involves the so-called “Rule of Two”:  under FAR 19.502-2(b), agencies must set aside for small businesses a procurement with an anticipated dollar value of more than $150,000 where the agency’s market research demonstrates there is a reasonable expectation at least two responsible small business offerors can meet the agency’s requirements at a fair market price.

When to file a protest challenging an agency’s corrective action is an issue that has confused protesters for over a decade since GAO’s Domain Name Alliance Registry, B‑310803.2, Aug. 18, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 168 decision.  In Domain Name, GAO held where a protester essentially challenges the “ground rules” of corrective action, that protest must be filed pre-award or risk being dismissed as untimely.  This has led to the proliferation of overly cautious protesters bringing pre-award challenges to corrective actions only to have GAO dismiss such protests as merely anticipating improper agency action and therefore premature.  Indeed, the line between a timely and untimely corrective action protest is unclear.  And that confusion persists, as evidenced in two recent GAO dismissals—General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., B-422421.6, B-422421.7, July 17, 2024, and Peraton Inc., B-422409.2, B‑422409.3, July 22, 2024.

Most organizational conflict of interest (OCI) sustains arise where the record shows that an agency failed to analyze the potential for a conflict.  But GAO’s decision in A Square Group, LLC, is a rarer type of OCI sustain: the agency considered the purported OCI and documented its conclusion that the OCI had been mitigated.  However, GAO found that the agency’s conclusions were unreasonable, and the OCI risk remained.

On June 6, 2024, the General Services Administration (GSA) issued a final rule seeking to minimize the use of single-use plastic (SUP) packaging materials in goods procured through the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS).  Rather than instituting an outright ban on SUP packaging, GSA opted to incentivize FSS contractors to offer SUP-free products through providing a special icon in GSA Advantage for FSS contractors self-certifying that their products are SUP-free.  The final rule explains that the SUP-free icon is intended to act “as an important discriminator when buyers are making purchasing decisions” so that FSS contractors that adopt this voluntary measure will become more marketable in the federal procurement space.  While application of the final rule is limited to purchases from the FSS, GSA believes that the final rule will “also create positive spillovers as non-FSS contracting firms adopt similar policies to compete with FSS contractors in non-FSS markets.”  GSA also explained that the final rule is an “initial step” in providing more sustainable packaging and that the goal is to encourage other federal agencies to eventually adopt these practices into other government contracts.  Importantly, GSA will rely on self-certification that identified products are SUP-free and will not require any third-party verification, as the increased regulatory burden could discourage participation of small businesses.  The final rule is effective starting July 8, 2024.

In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit considered Percipient.ai Inc.’s (Percipient) protest arising out of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s (NGA) SAFFIRE procurement, for the improvement of the agency’s production, storage, and integration of geospatial intelligence data.  Percipient’s protest was unusual—filed in 2023, it related to a task order NGA awarded to CACI, Inc. (CACI) two years earlier, for which Percipient did not (and could not) bid.  But Percipient’s protest did not challenge the award to CACI.  Instead, Percipient challenged NGA’s (and CACI’s) alleged failure, during task order performance, to conduct sufficient market research as to the commercial availability of AI software—for which Percipient already had a commercial offering that purportedly met NGA’s needs—before CACI began developing its own software at significantly higher cost.  Percipient alleged this failure violated 10 U.S.C. § 3453, which establishes a preference for commercial items/services and instructs agencies to procure them “to the maximum extent practicable.”

During the month of April, the Biden administration has continued to leverage federal procurement in pursuit of ambitious environmental sustainability policy goals.  The most recent round of new regulations and initiatives finds the administration seeking to strengthen purchasing mandates of sustainable goods and services, as well as laying the groundwork for significant restrictions on the federal procurement of products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

A wave of recent changes in federal and state law pertaining to PFAS chemicals is likely to present both immediate and long-term challenges to the government contracting community. At the federal level, contractors that import products, parts, packaging, equipment or other articles with components that contain PFAS must confront new and extensive regulatory reporting requirements relating to such imports going back to 2011, and they must do so by May 2025. At the state level, a growing list of states are enacting total bans on the sale and distribution of such products and components. On top of this flurry of environmental regulatory activity, the Biden Administration continues to direct federal agencies to develop procurement strategies that prioritize the purchase of PFAS-free articles as part the Administration’s broader effort to leverage the federal procurement function in pursuit of climate and sustainability policy objectives.