Logistics Systems, Inc. (B-423242.4)

You should not care.

Category: Corrective action, competitive prejudice, timeliness

Date: 10 July 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423242.4

Logistics Systems, Inc. (LSI), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protested the US Air Force’s corrective actions following a previous challenge to the issuance of a task order for enterprise data engineering services under a GSA VETS 2 IDIQ contract. Specifically, LSI objected to the Air Force’s decision to amend the solicitation, conduct discussions, and request revised proposals, arguing that these corrective actions were unreasonably broad and contrary to law and regulation, and that released debriefing information created an unfair competitive advantage. Alternately, LSI asserted that the scope of discussions was inadequate.

Agency discretion in corrective action: GAO reiterated that agencies have broad discretion in shaping corrective action. The Air Force cited (1) the lapsed proposal acceptance period, (2) revised period of performance due to delays, and (3) protest history raising issues regarding discussions as reasonable and material changes warranting a new round of quotes and clarifying interchanges.

Competitive prejudice and disclosure: LSI’s contention that prior debriefings prejudiced its position was rejected. GAO found no evidence that harmful or competitively useful information was disclosed, noting that only general ratings and pricing were shared—permissible under established precedent.

Scope and timing of protest on discussions: GAO dismissed as premature LSI’s claim that discussions were not meaningful, citing longstanding precedent that allegations around discussions raised before the award are not ripe for GAO review.

The protest was denied. This decision reinforces that agencies retain significant discretion in their corrective actions, especially when amendments are necessary or when discussion histories are in dispute.

Digest

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. Protest contending the agency failed to conduct adequate discussions is dismissed as premature when raised during discussions and prior to award.