On October 29, 2026, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held in Blue Water Autonomy, Inc. v. United States that it has bid protest jurisdiction over a Navy other transaction (OT) prototype competition because the competition was “in connection with” a procurement under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). The ruling matters for any contractor competing for
NASA’s renewed focus on bringing engineering, scientific, operational, and mission-support functions in-house will create significant challenges for government contractors that have historically performed this work. For contractors supporting NASA centers and programs, insourcing may mean reduced contract scope, early contract termination, lost follow-on opportunities, or uncertainty about the future of existing work. Although agencies have
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
A termination for convenience (T4C) can be a major disruption for a government contractor. The government may have the right to end a contract even when the contractor has done nothing wrong, but that does not necessarily mean the contractor simply walks away without payment.
If the government terminates your federal contract for convenience, your
When the federal government delays payment, a contractor should not simply wait and hope the problem resolves itself. Depending on the circumstances, a federal contractor may be entitled to prompt payment interest, may need to correct an invoice problem, or may have a contract claim that should be submitted to the contracting officer.
For federal
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.
The Federal Circuit, in Island Creek Associates, LLC v. United States, No. 2025-1140 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), recently affirmed the dismissal of a bid protest brought by Island Creek Associates, LLC, a prime contractor on the Navy’s SeaPort-NxG multiple-award IDIQ contract (MAC). Tucked into the decision as an alternate basis for affirming