Economic Systems, Inc.

B-424285.2 Jun 01, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Economic Systems, Inc. (EconSys), a small business of Vienna, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 24322626R0007, issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for federal human resource information technology modernization. The protester contends that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Economic Systems, Inc. File: B-424285.2 Date: June 1, 2026 James S. DelSordo, Apollo Contract Management, for the protester. Emily Warner, Esq., and Christopher Tiroff, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal and exclusion from competitive range is denied where the agency's evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Economic Systems, Inc. (EconSys), a small business of Vienna, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 24322626R0007, issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for federal human resource information technology modernization. The protester contends that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2025, the agency issued the solicitation under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking a contractor to provide a centralized, cloud‑based core human capital management (HCM) system platform to serve as the authoritative system of record for the civilian employees of the executive branch. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 17‑18. The solicitation explained that “the absence of a unified Core [HCM] platform available for governmentwide use” has resulted in “fragmented [human resource] processes, inefficiencies, and increased administrative burdens across federal agencies.” RFP at 17. To address these challenges, the solicitation sought to implement a centralized core HCM platform scaled across the federal government to standardize and streamline human resource processes for accurate and timely workforce data that would be used to effectively manage the civilian workforce and increase accountability. Id. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 10-year ordering period. Id. at 1‑2, 24. Award would be made “based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government,” considering the following factors: (1) past experience and solution readiness; (2) implementation approach; (3) system testing; (4) second virtual live demonstration; and (5) price. Id. at 152. The past experience and solution readiness factor encompassed three subfactors: (A) past experience case studies; (B) out‑of‑the‑box functionalities; and (C) first virtual live demonstration. Id. The solicitation set out a two-step evaluation process. In step one, the agency would evaluate proposals under the past experience and solution readiness factor. Id. To receive consideration for award, proposals were required to receive an overall rating of no worse than limited confidence.[1] Id. Upon completion of the step one evaluation, the agency was to provide an advisory notice informing each offeror whether it was among the higher‑rated or lower‑rated offerors. Id. at 157. Regardless of the notice, any offeror rated limited confidence or above could elect to continue to the second step of the evaluation. Id. Offerors proceeding to this step would be required to submit their proposal volumes for the step two evaluation factors: implementation approach, system testing, second virtual live demonstration, and price. Id. The agency would then evaluate proposals under the remaining factors, with proposals required to receive a rating of no less than acceptable under each non‑price factor to be considered for award. Id. at 152. For the best‑value tradeoff, each step‑two non-price evaluation factor (implementation approach, system testing, and second virtual live demonstration) would be equal in importance. Id. Each step-two factor would be more important than the step-one factor (past experience and solution readiness). Id. The three step‑two non-price evaluation factors, when combined, would be equal in importance to price. Id. As relevant here, under the implementation approach factor, each offeror was to describe its proposed technical approach and level of effort for the core implementation and agency transition phases of the contract. Id. at 149.