The Department of Veterans Affairs must go back to the drawing board on a $98.5 million contract for custom sterile surgical packs after the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that the agency never adequately explained why it chose to buy them on a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. In Manus Medical, LLC v. United States, No. 26-538, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith granted the incumbent's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied the government's cross-motion. The opinion was filed under seal on Oct. 2, 2026, and reissued in redacted form on Oct. 15.
The ruling affects 35 VA medical facilities across Veteran Integrated Service Networks 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 23, and any company interested in bidding on the work. The VA "is required to reissue the solicitation; either properly justifying LPTA procedures or by using a legally appropriate contracting method," Smith wrote.
What the $98.5M Sterile Pack Solicitation Sought
The VA issued solicitation 36C77625R0017 on Jan. 13, 2025, seeking a single firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for "Custom Sterile Procedure Packs and associated services." The contract carries a maximum value of $98,500,000. Amendment 7 set annual performance periods running from Aug. 2, 2026 through July 31, 2031.
Offers were to be judged on price, technical and experience factors, with every technical subfactor rated simply "acceptable" or "unacceptable." The technical factor covered a 120-day transition plan for each VISN, a web-based ordering and inventory system, electronic data interchange capability, sample packs, facility certifications and, until Amendment 11 removed it on July 28, 2026, a small business subcontracting plan.
Manus Medical, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, has held VA's bridge contracts for the packs since 2021 under contract 36C77623D0002. It filed a pre-award protest arguing that LPTA procedures favor "larger competitors who have greater economies of scale and who can offer lower prices," and that a tradeoff evaluation would let it compete on non-price strengths. The court's record shows Manus had earlier protested at GAO, prompting VA corrective action in February 2026.
Why Three LPTA Justifications Fell Short Under FAR 15.101-2(c)(6)
FAR 15.101-2(c) lists six conditions an agency must meet before using LPTA. The sixth requires the contracting officer to document the contract file with the circumstances that justify the approach. The government argued the contracting officer had done so at least three times. Smith disagreed: "Upon review, the Court finds that the VA failed to properly justify its LPTA decision and violated FAR 15.101-2(c)(6)."
The first justification, a July 16, 2024 evaluation approach determination, simply restated the regulatory criteria. "Restating the legal standard as a conclusion does not satisfy FAR 15.101-2(c)(6)," the court wrote. The August 2024 acquisition plan explained how the packs themselves fit LPTA but did not address the associated services. A third justification, prepared during the February 2026 corrective action, went into more detail but had the same gap. The court agreed with Manus that an LPTA justification must cover the associated services too.
The documentation failure did not decide the case by itself. Smith found that, standing alone, it caused Manus no competitive injury: "Taken alone, this is a de minimis error."
Where the Transition Plan and Web Portal Broke the LPTA Test
The substantive problems sat in the technical subfactors. The court rejected the government's argument that not every part of a solicitation must satisfy the FAR conditions, holding that all six apply.
On the transition plan, the VA's own acquisition plan warned that late delivery of packs could "affect scheduled surgeries resulting in delayed and/or cancelled procedures." Yet the agency asserted, without explanation, that it would gain no value from a plan that transitioned faster than 120 days. "The risks—delayed surgeries for veterans—are grave," Smith wrote, finding that the transition subfactor violated FAR 15.101-2(c)(2), which requires that an agency realize no or minimal value from exceeding minimum requirements.
The web-based system subfactor failed two more conditions. It required that the system "provide for easy identification" of components and other pack data, an undefined subjective standard, while the VA's market research pointed to subjective features the agency preferred. The court held that it violated FAR 15.101-2(c)(3) and (c)(4).
Manus lost several other arguments. The court called its challenges to the electronic data interchange and experience requirements speculation, said Manus was trying to "gold plate" the experience requirement in its own favor, held that Amendment 11 mooted the subcontracting plan challenge, and found that experience is not a technical factor under (c)(3) and (c)(4). On FAR 15.101-2(c)(5), which requires that the lowest price reflect total cost, the court called the VA's explanation conclusory but upheld the solicitation, reasoning that offerors are paid only when packs are ordered and so must build service costs into pack prices.
How the Court Weighed Harm to Manus and the VA
The government argued that Manus, by admitting it could not win an LPTA competition, had conceded it suffered no prejudice. The court turned that around. Because Manus holds the bridge contract and is qualified to compete, it "would be in a better position to secure the contract" under a price, technical and past performance tradeoff, the opinion found.
On injunctive relief, the court found that losing a shot at a contract with a $98.5 million ceiling would cause Manus irreparable harm through lost profits and experience. Manus argued the government would face minimal harm because it could keep ordering packs through the bridge contract, and the court found the balance of hardships favored Manus. It also held that the public interest favors requiring officials to follow procurement statutes and regulations. "Based on the foregoing, the Department of Veterans Affairs' use of LPTA procedures in the custom sterile pack solicitation is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law," Smith concluded.
What It Means for Contractors
The decision shows that an LPTA file built from boilerplate will not hold up. Contracting officers must explain in the record why LPTA fits each part of the requirement, including bundled services, and not simply repeat the six FAR conditions. A justification that covers the products but skips the services attached to them leaves the procurement open to challenge.
For incumbents and small businesses that compete on performance, the ruling gives a pre-award route to challenge LPTA when an agency's own documents identify risks, such as surgical delays, that faster or better performance would reduce. It also has limits: the court rejected challenges it found rested on hypotheticals and speculation, such as the claim that the VA would need more than minimal subjective judgment to compare transition plans or electronic data interchange proposals.
Companies interested in the VISN 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 23 requirement should watch for a reissued solicitation. The VA can either rewrite its LPTA justification or move to a tradeoff evaluation. Manus told the court the VA could keep ordering packs through its bridge contract in the meantime.
