The 5 Most Important Bid Protest Decisions of 2025

In 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued five noteworthy bid protest decisions affecting jurisdiction and agency discretion.

• Matter of: Castro & Co. LLC
• The DaVinci Co. LLC v. U.S.
• Matter of: The Mission Essential Group LLC
• ai Inc. v. U.S.
• Telesto Group LLC v. U.S.

Castro & Co.

The Facts

The Federal Election Commission issued a solicitation in April 2025, to acquire financial management and accounting services, and on June 17 awarded a blanket purchase agreement to Contracts Management Enterprises LLC.

Castro protested the award, alleging, in part, that the FEC failed to consider an impaired-objectivity organizational conflict of interest, or OCI, arising from CME's provision of contract personnel to the FEC, including one who directly supported the source selection authority for the procurement that CME won.

The FEC argued that the source selection authority considered whether CME's other contracts created an OCI and the mitigation of any potential OCIs, including establishing firewalls to prevent CME personnel from having access to or involvement in the blanket purchase agreement procurement.

Despite specific requests by the GAO during the protest, however, the FEC never produced documents showing analysis of CME's potential conflicts or mitigation plan implementation.

In a Nov. 13 decision, the GAO determined that the FEC failed to investigate or mitigate CME's potential impaired-objectivity OCI, given the lack of explanation of the OCI analysis, the factors supporting the OCI determination, or how the investigation and mitigation related to the OCI.

The GAO further noted that the firewall measures purportedly implemented to mitigate the potential conflict were appropriate to address an unequal access to nonpublic information OCI but not an impaired-objectivity OCI like that protested.

The GAO also sustained Castro's additional allegations regarding the technical evaluation and source selection decision because the record also lacked adequate documentation of those aspects of the award decision.

The Takeaway

The decision clarifies that agency discretion in evaluating and mitigating potential OCIs must be reasonable and adequately documented. For their part, prospective contractors should be prepared to support agencies in this analysis by providing sufficient information to facilitate the required analysis.

In addition, agencies and offerors should remember to ensure that proposed or implemented mitigation measures are tailored to address the precise type of potential OCIs that are at issue.

DaVinci

The Facts

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs sought to procure tamsulosin, a prostate treatment drug, under a small business set-aside solicitation governed by the Buy American Act.

After concluding that no domestic small business manufacturers existed, the VA secured a waiver under the U.S. Small Business Administration's nonmanufacturer rule, which allows resellers of foreign-made pharmaceuticals to compete.

When all the quotes submitted offered tamsulosin sourced from India, a country not covered by the Trade Agreements Act, the VA sought and obtained a nonavailability waiver from the SBA.

The VA then awarded the contracts to companies sourcing from India, ignoring offers from DaVinci, which proposed to supply tamsulosin from Spain, a TAA-designated country. DaVinci protested at the COFC, arguing that the VA erred in treating the procurement as subject only to the BAA and ignoring the TAA altogether.

The government argued that once a procurement is categorized as a BAA-governed small business set-aside, the TAA does not apply, even after nonavailability and nonmanufacturer waivers effectively eliminate domestic preference requirements.

DaVinci countered that the VA's own waiver of domestic sourcing rendered the BAA inoperative, triggering the TAA, which prohibits procurement from nondesignated countries like India.

On July 31, 2025, the COFC rejected the government's binary framing that either the BAA or the TAA applies, and focused on statutory sequencing — when an agency waives the BAA's protections, the TAA's requirements then apply.

The COFC (1) found that the VA misapplied Section 2511(f) of the TAA, which bars the act from overriding small-business or minority preferences and did not authorize the VA to ignore the TAA after waiving domestic sourcing rules; (2) distinguished between a nonmanufacturer waiver, which allows domestic resellers to offer foreign-made products, and a nonavailability waiver, which waives domestic preference altogether; and (3) found that the TAA applies to international procurements.

The COFC ordered the VA to issue a TAA-compliant solicitation.

The Takeaway

International trade issues recently have been the subject of increased scrutiny, and this case emphasizes that government contractors and attorneys should closely monitor solicitation terms and procurement decisions that touch on these topics, especially when an agency's approach conflicts with clear congressional intent.

When the BAA is waived, the TAA's obligations may apply. Agencies cannot circumvent the TAA by invoking the BAA and adding waivers. Practitioners should keep that idea in their back pocket.

Mission Essential Group

The Facts

Mission Essential Group protested the terms of a U.S. Air Force task order solicitation aimed at procuring in-garrison support services, in part because the agency improperly used a lowest-price, technically acceptable award methodology.

Mission Essential argued that the solicitation's terms violated rules requiring an agency's minimum performance objectives, measures and standards to be clearly described; that there would be little or no value from a proposal exceeding minimum requirements; and that the agency determine that the lowest price reflect full life cycle costs for the product or service under Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 215.101-2-70(a)(1).

On April 2, 2025, the GAO sustained the protest, concluding that the agency failed to show that it would "realize minimal or no value from a proposal exceeding the minimum requirements," in part because the solicitation's "bald statements" to that effect were unsupported, and in part because the solicitation requested unique approaches.

The GAO also concluded that the agency failed to make the required full life cycle costs determination, and failed to explain reasonably how the lowest-price offer would reflect the full life cycle of costs when several contract line item numbers lacked definition and finite costs at award.

The Takeaway

This protest decision is another reminder that agency discretion is limited by a rule of reasonableness and a requirement that discretionary decisions be adequately documented.

Here, the protest is also noteworthy because Mission Essential made a timely preaward solicitation-term challenge, something contractors often neglect to do, depriving themselves of a remedy.

AI

The Facts

This is the third iteration of this protest, which had already been to the COFC and the Federal Circuit, this time involving an en banc review of the Federal Circuit's 2024 decision.

To recap, in January 2021 the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency awarded an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract and a task order under that contract to CACI Inc., to build capability to store visual intelligence data, and integrate a computer vision system to produce, review, and classify image intelligence.

Percipient offered a commercial computer vision platform but did not meet all the indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract requirements, and had not submitted a proposal.

Percipient then sought evaluation by CACI as a potential subcontractor but CACI decided to develop its own computer vision system.

In January 2023, Percipient protested at the COFC, alleging that the agency deliberately failed to comply with statutory and regulatory preferences for commercial items during performance and market research.

In May 2023, the COFC dismissed the protest for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the protest involved a challenge to the issuance of a task order.

Percipient appealed to the Federal Circuit which, in June 2024, reversed, holding that the COFC erred in dismissing the protest because the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act task-order bar, upon which COFC relied, did not apply.

In addition, the Federal Circuit held that Percipient was an interested party because it offered a commercial product that had a substantial chance of meeting agency needs.

The government sought a rehearing en banc and, this time, the full Federal Circuit reversed the panel decision. On Aug. 28, 2025, the court held that an interested party for COFC jurisdictional purposes is an "actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract, regardless of the type of challenge brought."

The Federal Circuit's decision relied on the plain text of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1491, and on statutory history and longstanding precedent limiting protests to bidders or offerors.

The court also noted that Congress has repeatedly declined to extend protest standing to subcontractors. As such, Percipient lacked standing because it never submitted a proposal.

The Takeaway

Percipient has now sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, so stay tuned. Government contracts law practitioners will be watching closely to see what happens because of the possibility that subcontractors could have a limited ability to participate in bid protests, significantly changing the landscape by broadening the reach of protests.

For the moment, however, COFC bid protest standing remains limited to actual or prospective offerors. Prospective subcontractors and vendors that do not submit prime contract proposals cannot protest.

Telesto Group

In Telesto Group, the COFC narrowed its bid protest jurisdiction over Other Transaction Authority agreements, or OTAs, by holding that the court generally cannot review agency conduct during the active prototyping phase, although it may review statutory or regulatory violations tied to a procurement decision.

Applying that rule in a decision filed on June 2, 2025, the court dismissed most of Telesto's prototype-phase challenges and denied the remaining claims on the merits.

The Facts

The U.S. Army used its OTA authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 4022, to run a prototyping project. Telesto participated in the multistep prototype competition and was eliminated. Accenture Federal Services LLC was the only participant invited participate in the final prototyping step that could lead to a follow-on production contract.

Telesto challenged the Army's conduct of several steps of the prototype process as arbitrary and capricious, and also alleged statutory violations — notably, that the Army purportedly failed to ensure significant participation by at least one nontraditional defense contractor.

The main issues were whether the COFC has bid protest jurisdiction to review (1) an agency's conduct and evaluations during the prototyping phase of an OTA; and (2) statutory and regulatory compliance tied to the OTA.

Here, the COFC held that it generally lacks jurisdiction to review an agency's discretionary conduct during the active prototyping phase of an OTA, a phase described as an effective jurisdictional blackout.

The COFC explained that its bid protest jurisdiction under the Tucker Act attaches only when an OTA project results in, or the agency decides to pursue, a procurement — i.e., after the prototyping phase is successfully completed and the agency decides to procure the prototype or follow-on production.

The court, however, does retain jurisdiction over claims that allege statutory or regulatory violations in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement, e.g., claims tied to Section 4022(d)(1)(A) and the requirement to include nontraditional contractors, and claims tied to prototype-project-opportunity-notice terms required under Section 4022(f).

So, according to the decision, not all OTA challenges are off limits. Instead, statutory compliance tied to a procurement decision can be reviewed.

Many of Telesto's claims attacking the Army's step-by-step evaluations and other discretionary conduct during prototyping were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or as waived for failing to raise them during the prototype process.

The COFC held that it only had jurisdiction over claims involving the statutory requirement about nontraditional defense contractor participation and about changes to prototypeproject-opportunity-notice terms, but it rejected those claims on the merits.

The Takeaway

The Telesto opinion introduces a phased framework for OTA protests and the idea of jurisdictional blackout for the middle, prototyping phase. That is a meaningful limitation compared with other recent COFC opinions that were more willing to review OTA prototypephase conduct and departs in this respect from other COFC decisions, such as the 2025 COFC decision in Raytheon Co. v. U.S.

Practitioners reading the Telesto decision should also be aware that the holding potentially tightens the window for when the COFC will hear OTA challenges.

Conclusion

In the changing federal procurement landscape, the five decisions discussed here will likely have a continuing impact on bedrock bid protest questions about the limits of jurisdiction and agency discretion.

Aron Beezley is a partner and co-leader of the government contracts practice group at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

Nathaniel Greeson is a partner at the firm.

Patrick Quigley is counsel at the firm.

Bradley Arant associates Gabrielle Sprio and Winni Zhang, and senior attorney Eugene Benick, contributed to this article.

Disclosure: The authors represented Accenture Federal Services, the defendant-intervenor in Telesto Group v. U.S.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Republished with permission. This article, “The 5 Most Important Big Protest Decisions of 2025,” was published by Law360 on January 6, 2026. (login required)