The United States Court of Federal Claims has sided with the United States Marine Corps in a bid protest filed by Marathon Targets, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). The case concerned a contract for Trackless Mobile Infantry Target (TMIT) system support services. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to permanently block the contract award to MVP Robotics, Inc. (“MVP”) and upheld the Marine Corps’ decision to disqualify Marathon Targets from the procurement.
The court’s decision, issued on November 10, 2025, and re-issued on November 21, 2025, resolves a dispute that arose following the Marine Corps’ award of a five-year, fixed-price contract for TMIT support services. TMITs are essentially robotic targets used in live-fire and non-live-fire training exercises for the Marine Corps. The contract in question, Solicitation No. M6785424R8000, was set aside for small businesses.
The Solicitation and Award Process
The Marine Corps issued the solicitation on February 21, 2024, with proposals due by April 15, 2024. The Corps would assess proposals based on three criteria: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. Technical Approach was deemed the most important factor, followed by Past Performance. The Marine Corps indicated that it could award the contract to an offeror other than the highest-rated or lowest-priced, but would not pay a significantly higher price for only slightly superior performance.
Offerors were required to submit detailed proposals outlining their Technical Approach, including staffing plans, labor category descriptions, and material technical approaches. The Corps would evaluate the Technical Approach on a five-point scale. For Past Performance, offerors needed to submit information on recent and relevant efforts, with the Corps assigning a confidence rating based on the quality of the offeror’s performance. Price was also a factor, with the Corps calculating a “Total Evaluated Price.”
Marathon Targets, the incumbent contractor, and MVP Robotics both submitted proposals. Marathon Targets proposed a price of $[. . .], while MVP initially proposed $[. . .]. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) initially rated Marathon Targets’ Technical proposal as “Unacceptable” and MVP’s as “Marginal.” Both companies were given the opportunity to revise their proposals, which they did by September 6, 2024. Marathon Targets increased its price to $[. . .], and MVP increased its price to $190,705,603.02.
After the final evaluations, the SSEB and Source Selection Authority (SSA) rated Marathon Targets’ Technical Approach as “Acceptable” and MVP’s as “Good.” The Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) recommended a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating for Marathon Targets and a “Neutral Confidence” rating for MVP. The Marine Corps’ pricing analysis indicated a “moderate risk” of unsuccessful performance should the Corps require the additional 32-hour trailers, due to Marathon’s pricing approach.
The SSA conducted a best-value tradeoff analysis, ultimately awarding the contract to MVP. The SSA determined that MVP’s Technical Approach was superior and that MVP presented less risk to the government. The Marine Corps notified offerors of the award on November 27, 2024.
Inadvertent Disclosure and Disqualification
A key aspect of the case involved the inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information. In communicating the award decision, the Marine Corps’ Contracting Officer (CO) accidentally attached a partially unredacted copy of the Technical Evaluation Team’s (TET) evaluation of MVP’s proposal to an email sent to Marathon Targets’ CEO, Dr. Alex Brooks. Dr. Brooks then shared that information with ten other individuals, including some of Marathon’s employees and two individuals not employed by the company at the time.
Following an investigation, the Marine Corps found that Dr. Brooks had misrepresented the source of his knowledge of the information. Based on this misrepresentation and the appearance of impropriety, the Corps disqualified Marathon Targets from the solicitation.
Court’s Decision
The court’s ruling addressed two main issues: the Marine Corps’ decision to award the contract to MVP and the subsequent disqualification of Marathon Targets.
Disqualification Upheld: The court unequivocally upheld the Marine Corps’ decision to disqualify Marathon Targets. The court found that the Marine Corps had three valid reasons for disqualifying Marathon Targets:
* Marathon’s retention and use of protected information created a conflict of interest and gave Marathon an unfair competitive advantage.
* Marathon’s conduct created an appearance of impropriety.
* Marathon demonstrated it was not a responsible contractor under the FAR.
The court focused on the appearance of impropriety, noting that the Marine Corps’ determination was reasonable and based on a coherent explanation, connecting hard facts to a rational conclusion. The court held that the Marine Corps was permitted to act to avoid an appearance of impropriety, separate and apart from any determination the SBA could have made on Plaintiff’s responsibility as a contractor. The court found Marathon’s actions—disseminating the information to several employees and other individuals outside the company, and retaining the information for the company’s use—to be the motivating factor for the Marine Corps’ actions, not Marathon’s choice to avail itself of legal process.
The court also rejected Marathon’s procedural arguments, finding that the Marine Corps’ investigation was procedurally proper and that Marathon was provided adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.
Evaluation Challenges Rejected: The court also addressed Marathon Targets’ challenges to the Marine Corps’ evaluation of the proposals. The court found that the Marine Corps acted rationally and within its discretion in its evaluation of MVP’s proposal. The court rejected Marathon’s arguments about:
* The Marine Corps’ handling of potential conflicts of interest.
* The evaluation of past performance.
* The price evaluation.
* The technical evaluation.
* Compliance with the FAR’s limitation on subcontracting.
* The CO’s decision not to seek a size determination.
The court found that the Marine Corps conducted a thorough procurement process. Because Marathon did not succeed in its challenges, the court denied the request for permanent injunctive relief.
This decision affirms the Marine Corps’ award of the TMIT support services contract to MVP Robotics.