Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis has accused US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of using undisclosed criteria to evaluate bidders before awarding a $94.66 million sole-source contract to rival TRM Labs.
Chainalysis Government Solutions (CGS), a Chainalysis subsidiary, filed the lawsuit in the US Court of Federal Claims on 27 July 2026. A redacted version of the complaint was made public on 28 August. CGS alleges ICE relied on requirements from an earlier Request for Information (RIF) rather than the later Statement of Need provided to competing vendors.
The company also claims some of those requirements closely matched TRM Labs’ existing products and business relationships. The contract covers forensic software and support services for Homeland Security Task Force investigations and runs from 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027.
Federal contract records show TRM Labs was awarded a $94.7 million contract for blockchain forensic software and support services, making it the largest known blockchain analytics award issued by the US government. The one-year agreement will support Homeland Security Task Force investigations focused on scams, cybercrime and sextortion rather than broader financial monitoring activities.
The contract covers tools designed to trace digital assets, analyse illicit transactions, identify scam-related activity and assist investigations into cybercrime and sextortion networks. The agreement took effect on 1 July 2026 and will run for 12 months.
TRM Labs and rival blockchain intelligence service Chainalysis are at odds over the award. ICE’s choice to award the contract through a sole-source procurement procedure rather than allowing full competition is at the heart of the problem.
Chainalysis contends that ICE did not sufficiently explain why TRM Labs was uniquely competent for the task, even though sole-source contracts are allowed under federal procurement regulations when an agency finds that only one vendor can satisfy its requirements.
In its complaint, the company claims that the agency relied, in part, on capabilities outlined in an earlier RIF rather than on the requirements contained in the final Statement of Need.
The complaint claims that on 28 May, ICE sent out a RFI with eighteen questions used for acquisition planning and market research. The document asked for information on certain capabilities, such as a proprietary database with over a million scam-victim records, AI-powered investigative tools, automated notifications to virtual asset service providers when flagged funds moved downstream, and collaborations with stablecoin issuers to enable asset freezes, even though it claims not to be a solicitation.
ICE subsequently issued a Notice of Intent to Sole Source the contract to TRM Labs on 8 June and invited vendors to respond to a separate Statement of Need. Chainalysis argues that ICE later relied on criteria from the earlier RFI when evaluating whether rival providers could compete for the contract.
A number of specific RFI requirements are highlighted in the complaint. ICE inquired as to whether suppliers kept databases containing over a million records of scam victims and whether their platforms included AI features like entity resolution and agentic data retrieval. In order to facilitate voluntary holds on suspicious funds without case-by-case coordination, the agency also requested information on automatic notifications to participating virtual asset service providers.
Another prerequisite concentrated on current connections with stablecoin issuers that might aid in the global freezing of criminal assets by law enforcement. According to Chainalysis, these inquiries were more about particular technological aspects and business alliances than they were about more general, technology-neutral procurement goals.
The company argued that procurement processes can become less competitive when requirements closely mirror a particular vendor’s products or business relationships. It also notes that ICE’s subsequent Statement of Need adopted a broader framework, grouping requirements into three categories: scam disruption; cybercrime disruption, including resilience efforts involving state, local, tribal, and territorial partners; and sextortion disruption.
According to Chainalysis, several of the detailed capabilities outlined in the RFI were absent from the later Statement of Need, despite vendors being instructed to use that document when presenting their qualifications.
After ICE issued its Notice of Intent on 8 June, interested companies were reportedly given three days to submit capability statements, with responses restricted to one page. Chainalysis says it submitted its statement on 11 June and addressed each of the main mission areas outlined in the Statement of Need.
According to the complaint, ICE completed its market research the next day and concluded that TRM Labs was the only provider capable of meeting all the government’s operational, technical, and data requirements. Chainalysis argues that the timeline provided little opportunity for meaningful clarification, given the complexity of the technology and the scope of the three mission areas.
Chainalysis also alleges that ICE did not ask follow-up questions about Chainalysis’ platform, cleared personnel, or prior work with agencies including Homeland Security Investigations, the FBI, and the DEA.
The claim could be important from a procurement perspective because capability statements are frequently employed as a preliminary screening method, and their efficacy depends on whether vendors have sufficient knowledge to comprehend the final criteria. According to Chainalysis, the procedure is essentially “pro forma,” although the government can contend that it has sufficient data to make an informed procurement choice.
Chainalysis has filed seven claims against the government, according to the public complaint. The company claims that ICE wrongfully based its sole-source argument on the earlier RFI rather than the Statement of Need, relied on unduly restrictive specifications, and failed to take into account its capabilities statement.
The lawsuit also challenges ICE’s interpretation of procurement rules following changes associated with the government’s “Revolutionary FAR Overhaul.” Another claim argues that inadequate procurement planning should not be used to justify the avoidance of competition. Chainalysis is asking the court to examine whether ICE followed a legally sufficient process when concluding that only TRM Labs could meet its requirements.
TRM Labs has joined the case to defend the contract award, placing the two blockchain intelligence companies on opposite sides of the litigation. The dispute is before the US Court of Federal Claims, which has not ruled on the merits of Chainalysis’ allegations.
According to public records, the oral argument sessions are expected to take place on 2 September 2026, while the government has made a request that the decision be made before 10 September. The matter is progressing fast because of the short time left for performing the one-year contract.
According to earlier reports, the original complaint was filed under seal because it included trade secrets and private company information. Since then, a redacted version that includes more information about Chainalysis’ assertions has been released to the public. The claims are still unsubstantiated as of right now.
