Economic Systems, Inc.--Reconsideration

B-423747.3 Jan 28, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Economic Systems, Inc. (EconSys), a small business of Vienna, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Economic Sys., Inc., B-423747, B-423747.2, Aug. 22, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 199, in which we dismissed its protest of the intended issuance of a sole-source purchase order to Government Retirements and Benefits, Inc. (GRB), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1766993. That RFQ was issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for software licenses to the GRB retirement benefits systems platform. EconSys argues that our decision contains errors of fact that warrant reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of: Economic Systems, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-423747.3 Date: January 28, 2026 James S. DelSordo for the requester. Robert D. Banfield, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the requester has not shown that our prior decision contained an error of fact or law warranting reversal or modification. DECISION Economic Systems, Inc. (EconSys), a small business of Vienna, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Economic Sys., Inc., B‑423747, B‑423747.2, Aug. 22, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 199, in which we dismissed its protest of the intended issuance of a sole‑source purchase order to Government Retirements and Benefits, Inc. (GRB), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1766993. That RFQ was issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for software licenses to the GRB retirement benefits systems platform. EconSys argues that our decision contains errors of fact that warrant reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2025, the NPS issued a notice, titled “Sole Source Notification (Not a Request for Information or Quote),” explaining that it intended to issue a purchase order to renew licenses for GRB's Full Platform software. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, eBuy Cover Page at 1; Req. for Dismissal, exh. 2, Limited Sources Justification (LSJ) at 1. The GRB platform is a trademarked retirement benefits system platform that supports agency human resource employees and provides employees with personalized statements of their current benefits. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 2, LSJ at 1. The LSJ cited Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subsections 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B) and (C) as authority to restrict competition, stating that GRB is the only source capable of providing the trademarked GRB platform, and, also, that the requirement is a logical follow-on to the original order for the platform. Id. at 1‑2. The LSJ explained that while other, similar platforms exist, they would require significant adaptation, time, and technical support to meet the agency's needs. Id. at 2. The LSJ advised “[t]his requirement will be posted on [General Services Administration] ebuy as a special notice and potential sources may respond.” Id. at 2‑3. The eBuy notice also included a closing date of July 25, 2025. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, eBuy Cover Page at 1. On July 22, 2025, EconSys filed a protest with our Office, challenging the agency's decision to limit sources to GRB. Economic Sys., supra at 1‑2. As relevant here, the agency requested dismissal of the protest, arguing the protester was not an interested party to challenge the LSJ because it had not submitted a statement of interest with a capability statement to the agency prior to filing the protest.[1] Req. for Dismissal at 3‑4. EconSys responded that it provided the agency a capability statement in the form of a declaration “which accompanied [the] protest and was delivered to the contracting officer on July 22, 2025.” Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 3‑5. Our decision explained that “pleadings submitted as part of a GAO protest do not constitute the submission of a capability statement.” Economic Sys., supra at 5. We therefore found that the protester was not an interested party to challenge the agency's procurement decision because it had failed to submit a capability statement in response to the agency's LSJ before filing the protest with our Office. Id. at 5‑6 (citing CC Software, Inc., B‑421566, July 5, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 151 at 5). This request for reconsideration followed. DISCUSSION EconSys requests reconsideration of our decision dismissing its protest and contends that the decision contained errors of fact. Req. for Recon. at 3. In this regard, the requester asserts that our Office's conclusion that EconSys failed to submit a capability statement to the agency was “factually inaccurate and misstates the terms” of the sole‑source notice and LSJ. Id.