Unofficial satire. Not government guidance. Memes are not legal review.
CMCoEContracting Memes Center of Excellence

Daily acquisition brief // October 20, 2026

CMCoE Meme Intel: Best I Can Do Is Four

A twenty-person promise, a do-it-yourself customer signature, and an oversight office stopped at the door.

5 storiesRSS feed
Supreme Court / Contract staffing

Twenty people required. Four reported. Supreme Court review denied.

The Supreme Court declined ASG's petition on October 19, leaving the Navy staffing-contract judgment in place.

Pawn Stars: Best I Can Do meme: WE NEED TWENTY QUALIFIED PEOPLE / BEST I CAN DO IS FOUR
WE NEED TWENTY QUALIFIED PEOPLE / BEST I CAN DO IS FOUR

What happened

ASG argued that it could assemble specialists when the Navy assigned tasks. The Federal Circuit's December 15, 2025 decision instead read the Jacksonville engineering and program-management contract as requiring at least 20 professionals, or the equivalent, throughout performance.

The appellate opinion cited the lower court's finding that only four employees reported to NAS Jacksonville in March 2023, halfway through the contract period. It upheld the default termination. ASG's petition appears on the Supreme Court's October 19, 2026 list of certiorari denials.

Why CMCoE cares

The promised staffing baseline was an ongoing service obligation, not a roster to assemble only when assignments arrived.

Regulatory fine print

The new event is denial of review, not a Supreme Court merits ruling or a new staffing rule. The Federal Circuit disposition is nonprecedential. ASG disputed the interpretation, alleged an unlawful personal-services arrangement and challenged the termination; the courts rejected those arguments. Four refers to the employees reporting at Jacksonville at the cited point, not a count of everyone associated with ASG.

Sources

  1. Supreme Court: October 19 orders, page 2, No. 25-1372 (Supreme Court of the United States, )
  2. ASG appendix: Federal Circuit opinion, pages 1a-8a (Supreme Court docket / Federal Circuit, )
DOJ / USPS invoice controls

The contractor's invoice came with the customer's forged signature.

A $295,204 civil settlement includes admitted facts about inflated charges, false completion certificates and forged USPS employee signatures.

Obi-Wan: Of Course I Know Him meme: WHO SIGNED OFF ON YOUR INVOICE? / I KNOW HIM. HE'S ME.
WHO SIGNED OFF ON YOUR INVOICE? / I KNOW HIM. HE'S ME.

What happened

DOJ announced the agreement on October 19. Garrett Mechanical, Hey Brother and their owners agreed jointly and severally to $295,204, including $147,602 in restitution, over repair and maintenance billing from February 2021 through September 2023.

The attached statement of facts admits that claims included inflated labor, materials and rental costs, false receipts and completion certificates, and forged USPS employee signatures. USPS paid more than it owed under the service agreement.

Why CMCoE cares

A customer sign-off cannot provide independent acceptance evidence when the contractor supplies a forged version of it.

Regulatory fine print

This is a civil settlement, not a criminal conviction. The agreement denies any admission of liability while expressly admitting the attached facts; DOJ says there has been no determination of liability. The approximately $263,576 billed over the period is total billing, not the amount established as overpayment. The meme's speaker is fictional.

Sources

  1. DOJ: settlement announcement and liability caveat (U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Delaware, )
  2. Settlement agreement: recitals D-E, payment terms and attached facts (U.S. Department of Justice, )
Court of Federal Claims / Evaluation criteria

VA called the test objective. The court asked what 'easy' meant.

A newly public opinion requires VA to reissue its sterile-pack solicitation with a justified evaluation method.

SpongeBob Imagination meme: DEFINE 'EASY' FOR THE EVALUATORS / IMAGINATION
DEFINE 'EASY' FOR THE EVALUATORS / IMAGINATION

What happened

The October 2 Manus Medical opinion, reissued publicly October 15, concerns sterile procedure packs and services for 35 VA facilities, with a $98.5 million maximum contract ceiling. VA chose lowest-price technically acceptable procedures.

The required ordering website had to make product information easy to identify, but the court found that standard undefined and subjective. The court also found VA had not explained why a transition faster than 120 days would offer no more than minimal value. It required a reissued solicitation with properly justified LPTA or another lawful method.

Why CMCoE cares

Writing acceptable or unacceptable on the evaluation sheet does not turn an undefined judgment into a binary standard.

Regulatory fine print

VA defended its criteria and the court rejected several other Manus arguments, including challenges to EDI and experience requirements. This ruling does not prohibit every LPTA purchase of medical supplies. The ceiling is not an award or expenditure; the opinion discusses risks to surgeries, not a finding that this procurement caused canceled procedures. No later reissued solicitation was verified in this review.

Sources

  1. Manus Medical v. United States, No. 26-538: public opinion (U.S. Court of Federal Claims, )
From the acquisition files / Special operations oversight

The office assigned to oversee the program did not get the meeting invite.

GAO's June report describes an Armed Overwatch discussion that included contractors but excluded the civilian oversight office.

Gandalf: You Shall Not Pass meme: YOU SHALL OVERSEE / YOU SHALL NOT PASS
YOU SHALL OVERSEE / YOU SHALL NOT PASS

What happened

GAO's June 12 report says the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict learned afterward about a two-day November 2025 Armed Overwatch meeting with SOCOM stakeholders and contractor officials.

SOCOM said a closed discussion was appropriate because contractor discussions were sensitive. GAO found unclear access protocols impaired the civilian office's acquisition oversight. DOD agreed with all three recommendations; GAO still lists them open when checked October 20.

Why CMCoE cares

Assigning oversight responsibility does not ensure access to the information and discussions needed to exercise it.

Regulatory fine print

From the acquisition files: this is a June 2026 report about earlier meetings, not a newly disclosed October exclusion. The office had other access, including the first portion of a later split review and an acquisition portal. An open recommendation does not prove that no improvements have occurred or that today's meetings exclude the office.

Sources

  1. GAO-26-108036: full report and meeting-access findings (U.S. Government Accountability Office, )
  2. GAO: recommendation status, checked October 20 (U.S. Government Accountability Office, )
From the acquisition files / AI licensing

The Army rejected AI licensing at roughly $300,000 per vehicle, per year.

GAO documented an XM30 proposal that would have exceeded $500 million annually in fleet licensing fees alone.

Dr. Evil (pinky) meme: AI LICENSE: $300K PER VEHICLE / EVEN MY RANSOMS AREN'T ANNUAL
AI LICENSE: $300K PER VEHICLE / EVEN MY RANSOMS AREN'T ANNUAL

What happened

In its April 13 report, GAO relayed Army XM30 officials' account of a proposed AI licensing price around $300,000 per combat vehicle per year. Fleet licensing would have exceeded $500 million each year, in addition to buying the vehicles.

Army officials said they rejected the proposal and were exploring more affordable licensing models. The example illustrates the report's broader finding that agencies struggle to understand and compare AI pricing and continuing support costs.

Why CMCoE cares

An attractive AI capability can become an unaffordable fleet-wide recurring bill when license pricing multiplies by vehicles and years.

Regulatory fine print

From the acquisition files: the source is April 13, 2026, not an October award. This was a rejected proposal, not an incurred bill, accepted license, or fielded subscription. No later reversal was found in the official sources reviewed. Agencies concurred with GAO's lessons-learned recommendations, still listed open on October 20; those recommendations are not an order to accept or reject this price. The ransom joke is a fictional-film metaphor, not an accusation of extortion.

Sources

  1. GAO-26-107859: AI pricing and overall cost section (U.S. Government Accountability Office, )
  2. GAO: agency response and current recommendation status (U.S. Government Accountability Office, )