Logistics Systems, Inc. (FA8003-25-R-0006)

B-423242.4 Jul 10, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Logistics Systems, Inc. (LSI), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the scope of the Department of the Air Force's corrective action, following the firm's prior protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Epsilon, Inc., a small business of Weaverville, North Carolina, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA800325R0006, issued by the Air Force, for enterprise data engineering services. The protester contends that the agency's corrective action, which includes conducting discussions and soliciting revised proposals, is unreasonable and contrary to law and regulation, or, in the alternative, the Air Force failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Logistics Systems, Inc. File: B-423242.4 Date: July 10, 2025 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., John M. Tanner, Esq., and Jesse Cardinal, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for the protester. Stephen P. Ramaley, Esq., Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Cash W. Carter, Esq., and Mitchell D. Dolman, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Epsilon, Inc., the intervenor. Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., Colonel Nina R. Padalino, and Joseph M Cappola, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the scope of the agency's corrective action is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that issuing a solicitation amendment, conducting discussions, and requesting proposal revisions was necessary to ensure a fair competition and address reasonable agency concerns. 2. Protest contending the agency failed to conduct adequate discussions is dismissed as premature when raised during discussions and prior to award. DECISION Logistics Systems, Inc. (LSI), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the scope of the Department of the Air Force's corrective action, following the firm's prior protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Epsilon, Inc., a small business of Weaverville, North Carolina, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA800325R0006, issued by the Air Force, for enterprise data engineering services. The protester contends that the agency's corrective action, which includes conducting discussions and soliciting revised proposals, is unreasonable and contrary to law and regulation, or, in the alternative, the Air Force failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the FOPR on October 3, 2024, to firms holding contracts under the General Services Administration's Veterans Technology Services 2 (VETS 2) multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services) and subpart 16.5 (Indefinite-Delivery Contracts). Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, FOPR at 3.[1] The solicitation anticipated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order, with a 1-year base period of performance. Id. at 58. The contemplated task order seeks enterprise data engineering services, specifically, data acquisition, engineering, governance, machine learning model development, and artificial intelligence governance services. Id. at 7. The solicitation advised that award would be made on best-value tradeoff basis, using a two-phased evaluation. Id. at 120. During the first phase, the agency would consider proposals under the technical factor, which consisted of two subfactors: (a) demonstrated relevant experience; and (b) technical approach. Id. at 120. Following its evaluation under the technical factor, the Air Force would issue advisory notifications to inform each offeror of the likelihood of award, based on the phase one evaluation results, and asked firms to identify whether they would participate in phase two of the competition. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 5. Following the submission of phase two proposals, the agency would conduct its phase two evaluation, which consisted of an evaluation under the management factor--which included (a) staffing plan subfactor, and (b) risk management plan subfactor--and price. FOPR at 120. In making its best-value tradeoff determination, the solicitation advised that the agency would “conduct a holistic assessment” of all factors.[2] Id. at 121.