The protester argued a corrective action, which included opening discussions and soliciting revised proposals, was unreasonable and violated procurement regulations. GAO examined whether the agency’s corrective action was a reasonable response to previous evaluations and determined that it was. The agency’s actions addressed concerns from a prior protest. The corrective action was an attempt to ensure fair competition.
Matter of Logistics Systems, Inc., GAO, B-423242.4
- Background – The agency issued a fair opportunity proposal request for enterprise data engineering services to GSA’s VETS 2 contract holders, expecting a fixed-price task order. After the protester was initially awarded the task order, the awardee protested the evaluation process. The agency then took corrective action that included issuing changes to the solicitation, conducting discussions, and requesting new proposals. The protester filed a subsequent protest challenging this new corrective action.
- Corrective Action – The protester contended that the agency’s decision to conduct discussions and solicit revised proposals was overly broad and unnecessary. The protester argued that the agency should have reevaluated the existing proposals. GAO found that the agency acted reasonably by taking corrective action to address issues raised in earlier protests. GAO emphasized that an agency’s corrective action does not need to be narrowly tailored and that discretion is allowed to ensure fairness in competition.
- Meaningful Discussions – The protester also claimed the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions by not addressing all negative discriminators in their initial evaluation. However, GAO ruled that challenges made during discussions are generally premature unless there has been concrete action that forms a basis for a valid protest. GAO determined that, at this stage, it was too early for the protester to claim a lack of meaningful engagement due to the ongoing discussions.
The protester is represented by Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., John M. Tanner, Esq., and Jesse Cardinal, Esq. of Haynes and Boone, LLP. The intervenor, Epsilon, Inc., is represented by Stephen P. Ramaley, Esq., Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Cash W. Carter, Esq., and Mitchell D. Dolman, Esq. of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. The government is represented by Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., Colonel Nina R. Padalino, and Joseph M. Cappola, Esq. of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., participated in the decision.
