E-Logic, Inc. (80TECH24R0001)

B-423306.13,B-423306.21 May 15, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights E-Logic, Inc., a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80TECH24R0001, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for information technology (IT) products, cloud solutions, cybersecurity, and related services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal from the competition. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: E-Logic, Inc. File: B-423306.13; B-423306.21 Date: May 15, 2026 Luis Padilla for the protester. Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., and Stephen T. O'Neal, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's elimination of the protester's proposal from the competition is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION E-Logic, Inc., a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80TECH24R0001, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for information technology (IT) products, cloud solutions, cybersecurity, and related services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal from the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND NASA issued the solicitation on May 23, 2024, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking to award the sixth generation of the solutions for enterprise-wide procurement (SEWP VI) government-wide acquisition contract vehicle for IT products and services.[1] The RFP will result in multiple government-wide indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts under which fixed-price, time-and-materials, labor‑hour, fixed-price award fee, fixed-price incentive fee, and fixed-price economic price adjustment task orders can be issued. RFP at 40. The solicitation contemplates awarding contracts to all qualifying offerors for an ordering period of 10 years. Id. at 40, 117. The maximum ordering value is $20 billion. Id. at 44. The solicitation advised that contracts will be awarded for three categories;[2] each category is self-contained with its own separate fulfillment requirements, quotation submission requirements, and evaluation criteria. Id. at 25-39. This protest concerns category A, ITC/AV service solutions. The due date for receipt of category A proposals was February 24, 2025. COS at 2. NASA is conducting this procurement in three phases. RFP at 117. Upon the completion of each phase of the evaluation, the agency will notify the offeror whether its proposal was selected to proceed to the next phase of the competition or eliminated from the competition. Id. at 118. As relevant to this protest, during phase 1, offerors were to complete a spreadsheet template, attached to the solicitation as exhibit 3a, in which offerors were to propose technology solutions for four out of eight mandatory technical areas.[3] Id. at 100-103. The exhibit 3a spreadsheet provided tabs for each of the eight technical areas and each tab contained the following seven columns: contract line item numbers (CLINs)[4] (column A); original equipment manufacturer (OEM)/service provider (column B); part number (column C); model name (column D); description (column E); United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (column F); and the SEWP catalog price (column G). See AR, Tab 4, Exhibit 3a for E-Logic; see also RFP at 104. The solicitation required offerors to populate each column with the relevant information. RFP at 103-104. The solicitation required that offerors “provide a letter of authorization (LOA) from a designated provider (OEM)” for each of the four technical areas to ensure that the provider approved of the offeror proposing its products for the SEWP VI proposal. Id. at 103. The solicitation further required offerors to designate one of the technical areas as the “primary” technical area and the other three technical areas as the “non-primary” technical areas. Id. at 104. For the primary technical area, offerors were required to propose a minimum of 1000 CLINs from the designated provider.[5] Id. For the non-primary technical areas, offerors were required to propose a minimum of 100 CLINs from the designated provider. Id. The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate proposals on a pass/fail basis under phase 1 and that if a proposal did not meet all the requirements, the proposal would be ineligible for award and excluded from the competition. Id.