The AI evaluation nobody used had very familiar sentences.
A newly public court order challenges the government’s account of AI material in an Army source selection.
What happened
The September 11 order, publicly reissued October 5 in TRAX v. United States, found inaccurate representations about who saw AI evaluations. It also identified near-identical passages in a third offeror’s evaluation.
Why CMCoE cares
A procurement record must include material generated or considered during the decision process, even when the agency disputes relying on it.
Regulatory fine print
The court ordered government counsel to explain why sanctions should not follow; this is not a final sanctions ruling or finding of deliberate deception. DOJ counsel apologized and said he had not known two recipients were evaluators. The underlying award to Southwest Range Services was upheld September 3; overlap for TRAX and SRS was minimal.
Sources
- Court of Federal Claims — TRAX, No. 26-796, public show-cause order (U.S. Court of Federal Claims, )