When a procuring agency accidentally hands one offeror its competitors’ pricing, the instinctive fix is to give everyone the same information. In Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) held that this approach does not cure the problem, and that an agency cannot rely on an awardee’s own statements to conclude that
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) remain an important growth strategy for government contractors seeking to expand their contract portfolios, acquire specialized capabilities, enter new markets, and strengthen their competitive positions. As the federal procurement landscape evolves, however, the factors that drive successful transactions are changing. Buyers must evaluate not only traditional financial metrics and commercial synergies, but also contract performance risk, regulatory compliance, cybersecurity obligations, security clearances, and the operational consequences of integrating a government contracting business.
Losing a federal contract because the government determined that your proposal was technically unacceptable can be frustrating — and potentially expensive. But an unfavorable technical evaluation does not necessarily mean that the agency got the procurement right. If your proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable, there are several issues you should examine promptly.
On October 13, 2026, the Army issued Amendment 0011 to the Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS) solicitation, W15P7T-26-R-A006, extending the proposal due date to 11:59:59 a.m. local time on November 12, 2026. For a procurement with a $50 billion ceiling, this amendment is not a minor housekeeping update — it introduces a
Government contractors routinely encounter changes after contract award. A contracting officer may issue a formal change order, revise specifications, alter the method of performance, change delivery requirements, or direct work that the contractor believes goes beyond the scope of the original contract. In some situations, the government may take action or provide direction without issuing a formal written modification at all.
When an agency takes corrective action in response to a bid protest, it usually gets fairly broad deference on how to fix the problem. The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in FusionEdge Solutions, LLC, B-423829.2, et al. (Aug. 27, 2026) is a reminder that deference has limits — and that an agency cannot
Bradley has been publishing an ongoing survey of state-level bid protest processes and procedures (see e.g., our posts on “Bid Protests in Hawaii,” “Bid Protests in Missouri,” “Bid Protests in New Mexico,” “Bid Protests in North Carolina,” “Bid Protests in Florida,” and “Bid Protests
The defense industrial base is expanding, and the Department of War is actively recruiting new entrants, from venture-backed startups building autonomous systems to established IT services firms pivoting to classified work. But before any company can touch classified information, it must obtain a Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). The
October 1 marks the beginning of the federal government’s new fiscal year and, for government contractors, the start of a new cycle of contracting, funding, and compliance activity. After the heightened procurement activity that often accompanies the September 30 fiscal year-end, contractors should use the beginning of the new fiscal year to assess their existing
Employee departures are a routine part of doing business. For government contractors, however, the departure of a key employee can raise issues that go well beyond ordinary employment law concerns.
A departing employee may possess proprietary technical information, pricing data, proposal materials, customer information, source code, business strategies, or information concerning a government program. If