Court of Federal Claims Says Procurement Integrity Act Violation Doesn’t Doom Procurement

In a high-stakes procurement for medical services at the southern U.S. border, incumbent contractor Loyal Source challenged the handling by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of alleged Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violations and bias after a Washington Post article and whistleblower letters revealed internal details about the ongoing procurement. In Loyal Source Government Services, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1001 (Apr. 8, 2025)​​, Loyal Source argued that these disclosures tainted the procurement and that DHS failed to investigate or mitigate the harm adequately.

The Decision
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) denied the protest, ruling that:

1. PIA Violation Occurred, but the Government Mitigated Appropriately: The Court agreed that a PIA violation occurred when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials disclosed evaluation details to the press.  However, the Court found that DHS acted reasonably by removing CBP from the procurement, transferring control to a different office, and vetting a new evaluation team​.
2. No Need for a Lengthy Investigation When the Violation Is Obvious: The Court held that once it was clear on the face of the Washington Post article that a violation occurred, further fact-finding was unnecessary. Agencies have discretion in how they respond, and CBP’s swift referral of the procurement to DHS and the Office of Professional Responsibility was sufficient​​​.
3. Bias Allegations Not Supported by “Well-Nigh Irrefragable Proof”: Although Loyal Source alleged animus from CBP personnel, the Court found no evidence of improper conduct from DHS personnel now handling the procurement, nor any indication that CBP bias would affect the outcome, since CBP was fully removed from the evaluation team.
4. No Prejudice Shown: Because DHS restructured the procurement to eliminate any taint from the PIA, Loyal Source failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice.
5. Supplementation of the Record Denied: The Court rejected Loyal Source’s request to depose officials or supplement the administrative record, citing lack of necessity and reiterating the high bar for deviating from record review in bid protests​.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

1. Not Every PIA Violation Derails a Procurement: A confirmed PIA violation may not warrant a re-solicitation or cancellation if the agency takes reasonable, timely steps to insulate the procurement.
2. Bias Allegations Face a High Bar: Protesters must present “well-nigh irrefragable proof” of bias, not just speculation, internal tension, or unfavorable treatment under a prior contract.
3. Corrective Action Can Cure the Record: The decision to remove the entire evaluation from CBP’s hands, reissue the solicitation, and request updated proposals helped convince the Court that the integrity of the procurement was preserved.
4. PIA vs. Bias—Know the Difference: The Procurement Integrity Act addresses improper disclosure of source selection or contractor proposal information, not general claims of bias or animus. Each issue is governed by different legal standards and remedies.
5. The Court Will Not Micromanage Investigations: The agency—not the court—decides what an adequate investigation looks like. So long as the actions taken are reasonable, they will be upheld under the “highly deferential” APA standard.

[View source.]