No. 26-301

Global Connections to Employment, Inc. v. United States

Apr 13, 2026U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Bid protestNo topicProcedural ruling

Key Facts

Plaintiff
Global Connections to Employment, Inc.
Case number
No. 26-301
Decided
Apr 13, 2026
As the opinion prints it
No. 26-301

Official Record (govinfo)

Judge of record
Judge David A. Tapp
Nature of suit
Contract - (Post Award) Injunction (140)
Cause
civil

From U.S. court records published by the Government Publishing Office, matched to this decision only where the official record's issue date equals the decision date above. Open the official record.

Matter

Bid protest

Matter is contract dispute, bid protest, or both. For a decision read from the curated listing it is the listing's own arrangement; for a decision read from the court's own feed it is the court's Nature of Suit where the official record holds one, and otherwise what the opinion's own opening states. Where the official record is available, the court's own Nature of Suit appears beside it.

Topics

No topic

Topics are an editorial grouping of the decisions read from the curated listing, not a classification by the court. A decision listed under several topics carries all of them. Bid protests carry no topic at all, and neither does a decision read from the court's own feed: no grouping was published for them.

Opinion PDF (uscourts.gov) U.S. Court of Federal Claims opinions and ordersThe opinion document is hosted by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims itself, so it is an official copy, and the court's own opinions page is the source of record. The outcome, topics and appearances above are derived deterministically from the court's record and the opinion's own text.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the COFC workspace: the Decision Brief workflow, the filtered browser and the outcome insights over the whole corpus.

COFC Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief drafted from this opinion's own text and the authorities it cites, with every citation traced back to the page it came from.

Browse and Insights

The court's opinions filtered by matter, topic, judge, outcome and year, with the outcome dashboard whose every rate divides by merits rulings.

Full Opinion

Full text of the opinion2 pages, 4,251 characters, read from the court's own documentFiled Apr 13, 2026 Decision documentOfficial source: U.S. Court of Federal Claims opinions and ordersThe document states: No. 26-301

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 26-301

Filed: April 2, 2026†

Reissued: April 13, 2026

GLOBAL CONNECTIONS TO

EMPLOYMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

The case caption as the opinion prints it. The box the court draws around it is a rule rather than text, so it is not repeated here; every word is.

Order

Zealous advocacy does not license gamesmanship. At 5:03 PM on March 30, 2026, the day the Administrative Record was due in this matter, (see Sched. Order, ECF No. 23), the Government filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending an Agency Administrative Decision, (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 26). According to the Government, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (“DCSA”) submitted a request to the AbilityOne Commission Ombudsman (the “Ombudsman”) seeking a ruling on the services at issue in this bid protest. (Mot. to Stay at 2). That request was submitted on March 3, 2026, twenty-seven days prior to the Government’s last-minute untimely motion to stay. (Id.).

In plain language, there is no readily apparent excuse for the Government waiting until after normal business hours on the last possible day to seek leave from the Court to blow past the deadline for filing the Administrative Record, thereby disrupting every subsequent deadline. In addition, the Government seeks to leverage the Ombudsman’s forthcoming decision into a sixty-five day stay, none of it attributable to a request for remand, nor with the assent of Plaintiff. In sum, the Government ignored the Court’s scheduling Order, granted itself an enlargement, and disrupted the long-held standard that bid protests are resolved on an expedited basis. This conduct is unsupportable.

Plaintiff characterizes the Government’s untimely Motion as “disingenuous” and “inappropriate[.]” (Pl.’s Resp. at 6, ECF No. 27). The Court agrees. Such blatant circumvention of Court-ordered deadlines is inexcusable. The Government’s eleventh-hour filing, presented † This Order was originally issued under seal, (ECF No. 28), and the parties were directed to file a notice of redactions consistent with the Court’s instructions. That notice was filed on April 9, 2026, and the parties indicated that no redactions were required. (ECF No. 40).

under the guise of diligence and judicial “economy[,]” (see Mot. to Stay at 3), is nothing more than an attempt to run out the clock. Twenty-seven days elapsed between DCSA’s submission to the Ombudsman and the Government’s Motion. (Id.). The Government had ample time to file its Motion to Stay and ample time to file its Administrative Record. This is to say nothing of the fact that the dates in question were jointly proposed by counsel in an e-mail to Chambers. And yet, the Government chose to completely disregard the Court’s Order adopting the parties’ proposed schedule in full. In any proceeding, the Court expects respect for opposing counsel and fidelity to the procedural rules that make fair litigation possible. The Government’s conduct has fallen short of both obligations.

Therefore, the Government’s Motion to Stay is DENIED. The Administrative Record SHALL be filed no later than 4:00 PM (ET) on Friday, April 3, 2026. Accordingly, the briefing schedule in this matter is amended to the following:

EventDeadline
Administrative RecordApril 3, 2026
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative RecordApril 17, 2026
Defendant’s Response Brief/Cross-MotionApril 28, 2026
Plaintiff’s Reply/Response BriefMary 4, 2026
Defendant’s Reply BriefMay 11, 2026
Joint AppendixMay 18, 2026
Table as printed on page 2 of the court's own document, set from where the page puts its cells rather than from the text layer, which prints one cell per line. The words are the document's and nothing is totalled or interpreted. The page sets no heading apart on this one, so none is shown; a table that runs on from the previous page begins mid-data.

Furthermore, due to the Government’s flagrant and unapologetic disregard for this Court’s Order and opposing counsel’s time, the Government is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE as to why it should not bear the reasonable costs associated with drafting and submitting Plaintiff’s Response, (Pl.’s Resp.). The Government’s response is due by Monday, April 6, 2026, at 4:00 PM (ET), and SHALL be signed by both defense counsel and their supervisor. Correspondingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit a report certifying the reasonable costs incurred in the drafting and filing of their Response, (Pl.’s Resp.), to the Court by Monday, April 6, 2026, at 4:00 PM (ET).

Finally, parties are ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions to this Order by Thursday, April 9, 2026, so that it may be published.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ David A. Tapp

DAVID A. TAPP, Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the court's own document in Global Connections to Employment, Inc. v. United States. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the court wrote them. Two things the page shows are not repeated in the text: the rule the court draws around its caption, and the pagination furniture (the page numbers and the electronic filing stamp printed across the top of each page).

Related Decisions

Same Matter: Bid protest

Same Year

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.