Economic Systems, Inc.

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. Specifically, offerors were instructed to provide a “clear and concise narrative describing their approach to Core HCM platform configuration and deployment; data migration and integration activities; agency transition planning and execution; change management, training, and user adoption strategies; and risk mitigation and quality assurance measures.” Id. Proposals would be evaluated under the implementation approach factor to determine “the extent to which [the proposal] demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and meeting and/or exceeding the requirements” of the solicitation and “the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable.” RFP at 157‑158.

Under the system testing factor, offerors were to provide secure and fully functional access to their proposed core HCM platforms. Id. at 149. Access to the system was required to include “all modules and features necessary to evaluate the functional areas listed” in the solicitation. Id. The seven functional areas comprised: usability and accessibility; federal action processing; employee/manager self-service; learning and development; time and attendance; analytics and visualization; and performance and reliability. Id. Offerors were also required to provide “all necessary materials, documentation, and in‑platform guidance to enable Government testers to independently navigate the system and complete evaluation tasks.” Id. at 150. The evaluation would consider the “extent to which the system demonstrates functional completeness, accuracy, and alignment with the Government's requirements,” as well as the “quality of the user experience, including usability, accessibility, and intuitiveness of the interface” and the “system's responsiveness, reliability, and ability to handle real‑time transactions and workflows.” Id. at 158.

After completing the step one evaluations, the agency assigned an overall rating of limited confidence to EconSys's proposal under the past experience and solution readiness factor. COS at 4; see AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 1‑10. Based on this evaluation, the agency notified EconSys that it was among the lower‑rated offerors. COS at 4. EconSys informed the agency that it would proceed to step two of the evaluation and timely submitted a step two proposal. Id.

Upon completion of the evaluation, EconSys's proposal received the following ratings:

	EconSys
Past Experience and Solution Readiness	Limited Confidence
Past Experience Case Studies	Limited Confidence
Out-of-the-Box Functionalities	Satisfactory Confidence
Virtual Live Demonstration 1	Limited Confidence
Implementation Approach	Unacceptable
System Testing	Unacceptable
Virtual Live Demonstration 2	Unacceptable
Price	$630,768,302

Competitive Range Determination at 3‑4.

Under the implementation approach factor, the evaluators assessed one strength, four weaknesses, and two deficiencies and assigned EconSys's proposal a rating of unacceptable.[2] AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 12‑15. Under the system testing factor, the evaluators assessed two strengths, six significant weaknesses, and three weaknesses, resulting in another rating of unacceptable. Id. at 16‑19. Under the second virtual live demonstration factor, the evaluators assessed three strengths, five significant weaknesses, eight weaknesses, and one deficiency, resulting in a rating of unacceptable for that factor. Id. at 25‑28. For the price evaluation, the agency noted that EconSys's proposal did not include the most favored customer certification required by the solicitation. Id. at 29. Based on this evaluation, the agency determined that EconSys was not one of the most highly rated offerors and had no chance of award. COS at 7. As a result, EconSys was excluded from the competitive range. Id.; Competitive Range Determination at 5.

After being notified of its exclusion from the competitive range and receiving a pre‑award debriefing, EconSys filed this protest. AR, Tab 12, EconSys Unsuccessful Offeror Notice at 1; AR, Tab 13, Debriefing Slides.

DISCUSSION

EconSys challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and decision to exclude EconSys's proposal from the competitive range.[3] Protest at 7‑14. Specifically, the protester alleges that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and was otherwise unreasonable in assessing various weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in EconSys's proposal. Id. The agency responds that its evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3‑25.

While we do not discuss every allegation and collateral argument raised by the protester, we have considered them all and find that none provides a basis to sustain the protest.[4] We discuss below a few representative examples of the challenged evaluation assessments.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. Cyberdata Techs., LLC, B‑417816, Nov. 5, 2019, at 4. An offeror's disagreement with an agency's judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. BNP Education Partners LLC, d/b/a Marzano Research, B‑420247, Jan. 12, 2022, at 5. Agencies are not required to retain, in the competitive range, proposals that are not among the most highly rated or that the agency otherwise reasonably concludes have no realistic prospect of being selected for award. FAR 15.306(c)(1); Program Insite, LLC, B‑419646, June 2, 2021, at 7.

Dismissed Challenges

As a preliminary matter, the protester makes a general allegation that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria but fails to specifically challenge a number of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies assessed by the agency. In this regard, the protester discusses only a portion of the weaknesses and deficiencies assessed as examples of the alleged application of unstated evaluation criteria. See, e.g., Protest at 7, 8, 11.

For example, in challenging the evaluation of EconSys's implementation plan, the protester makes specific arguments only with respect to one weakness (assessed for a lack of implementation detail) and one deficiency (assessed for not proposing an implementation approach for a system of record). Protest at 10‑12. The agency assessed a total of four weaknesses and two deficiencies in EconSys's implementation plan, but the protester, in its initial protest filing, only passingly mentions two other weaknesses (without any supporting arguments) and makes no mention of the fourth weakness or the second deficiency. See e.g., Protest at 11 (“Additionally, Weaknesses #s 2&3 once again are not linked to actual started evaluation criteria but are new criteria of which the offeror had no notice.”). Similarly, although the protester challenges the agency's assessment of several significant weaknesses in EconSys's second virtual live demonstration, see id. at 13‑14, Comments at 16‑17, the protester does not specifically challenge a deficiency assessed under the live demonstration factor for the protester's failure to demonstrate a system of record.[5]

Our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for the protest, and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient.  4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4) and (f). This requirement contemplates that protesters will provide, at a minimum, credible allegations that are supported by evidence and are sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood of the protester's claim of improper agency action. Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B‑423546, B‑423546.2, Aug. 5, 2025, at 4.

Here, to the extent the protester simply mentions or lists the agency's evaluation findings and generally alleges impropriety, without providing a detailed statement or evidence supporting the challenge to the assessed weakness or deficiency, we find that the protester fails to state factually and legally sufficient grounds of protest. Accordingly, we dismiss these challenges for failure to state a valid basis of protest.

In addition, although the protester attempts to question previously unchallenged findings and bolster previously unsupported grounds of protest by making new or additional arguments in its comments on the agency report, we find that such attempts amount to the improper piecemeal presentation of protest issues.

Our regulations require that a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). Moreover, when a protester initially files a timely protest, and later supplements it with independent grounds of protest, the later-raised allegations must independently satisfy the timeliness requirements. Savvee Consulting, Inc., B‑408416.3, Mar. 5, 2014, at 5. In this regard, our regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues through later submissions citing examples or providing alternate or more specific legal arguments missing from earlier general allegations of impropriety. BluePath Labs, LLC--Costs, B‑417960.4, May 19, 2020, at 6. Accordingly, we will dismiss a protester's piecemeal presentation of arguments that could have been raised earlier in the protest process. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2); see e.g., American Roll‑On Roll‑Off Carrier Group, Inc., B‑418266.9 et al., Mar. 3, 2022, at 11 n.12.

Here, the protester raises numerous allegations and arguments for the first time in its comments on the agency report, which amount to the impermissible piecemeal presentation and development of protest issues. In this regard, the agency's February 20 debriefing described all of the weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies assessed in EconSys's proposal. See generally, AR, Tab 13, Debriefing Slides. Despite this, the protester waited until its April 13 comments to cite several weaknesses and deficiencies as examples of the agency acting unreasonably or applying unstated evaluation criteria. For example, the protester argues for the first time in its comments that a deficiency assessed for EconSys's proposal of an implementation timeline that did not align with the solicitation's required milestones was unwarranted. See Comments at 9‑10. Because EconSys was aware of these assessments when it received its debriefing on February 20, see AR, Tab 13, Debriefing Slides at 23, its April 13 challenges to these assessments is untimely. See American Roll‑On Roll‑Off Carrier Group, Inc., supra.

Implementation Approach

The protester levies several challenges to the weaknesses and deficiencies assessed in its proposal under the implementation approach factor, arguing that the evaluation applied unstated evaluation criteria and was otherwise unreasonable. Protest at 10‑12; Comments at 9‑12. The agency responds that the weaknesses and deficiencies were assessed reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. MOL at 11‑17. We have reviewed these challenges and find no basis to sustain the protest.

As a representative example, the protester specifically challenged one of the two assessed deficiencies, a deficiency assessed on the basis that EconSys's proposed platform was not a core HCM platform that would serve as a system of record as required by the solicitation. Protest at 11-12. In assessing the deficiency, the evaluators found that EconSys's platform was “positioned as a front‑end [system] with authoritative data residing in the payroll system.” AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 14. The agency noted that this was “inconsistent with the solicitation's requirement for a secure, cloud‑based single integrated HCM platform to serve as the [system of record].” Id. The evaluators also found that EconSys's proposal “emphasize[d] migrating ‘from the [system of record]' rather than establishing the HCM as [the system of record].” Id. Based on these findings, the evaluators concluded that the protester's failure to commit the HCM to the responsibilities of a system of record was “a material failure to meet a fundamental PWS requirement, as identified in Section 2.6,” demonstrated “insufficient Understanding of the Problem,” and “render[ed] the proposed method infeasible.”[6] Id.

The protester contends that the agency's findings reflect an application of unstated evaluation criteria, arguing that “[n]othing in Section 2.6 of the PWS comes close to requiring or mandating a system as described” in the evaluation.” Protest at 11. While not disputing that the solicitation required the HCM to be a system of record, see Comments at 9, the protester also asserts that “[w]hatever system is employed will still be feeding data to the payroll provider and since ultimately it's the pay and benefits there is no basis to find EconSys deficient if [EconSys's system] [is] a ‘front‑end system.'” Protest at 12. In this regard, the protester argues that “[a]s long as a system is feeding data to another system[,] then the system provides the pay and benefits as the system of record as required by the Solicitation.” Id. In addition, the protester contends that the phrase “front-end” is a “misnomer” and that its proposal reasonably contemplated that various agencies' shared service providers for personnel and payroll would “continue as [systems of record] after the start of the contract for a transition period of time" until EconSys's system could be integrated and updated to become the authoritative system of record. Comments at 9‑10.

It is axiomatic that in a negotiated procurement an agency must evaluate proposals based on the solicitation's enumerated evaluation factors. SupplyCore, Inc., B‑411648.2, B‑411648.3, Feb. 21, 2017, at 9. An agency may properly apply evaluation considerations that are not expressly identified in the solicitation if those considerations are reasonably and logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria, so long as there is a clear nexus linking them. Phoenix Air Grp., Inc., B‑412796.2, B‑412796.3, Sept. 26, 2016, at 11.

Here, we find no basis to question the agency's evaluation. As the protester acknowledges, see Comments at 9, the solicitation required the proposed HCM platform to be “the system of record for approximately 2 million Executive Branch civilian employees.” RFP at 18. Because EconSys's approach described a front-end system that draws data from, and feeds data to, other systems of record, e.g., payroll providers, the evaluators reasonably found the proposal to be “inconsistent with the solicitation's requirement for a . . . HCM platform to serve as a [system of record].” AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 14. We find the assessment of a deficiency here to be consistent with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria that proposals would be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirement and an achievable and workable approach. See RFP at 158. Based on this deficiency, as well as a second deficiency and several weaknesses, the agency assigned a rating of unacceptable to EconSys's implementation approach.[7] AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 15. To the extent the protester disagrees with the agency's evaluative judgment, such disagreement, without more, is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. See BNP Education Partners LLC, supra.

System Testing

The protester also challenges several of the weaknesses and significant weaknesses assessed in its proposal under the system testing factor, arguing that the numerous criticisms of its system were based on unstated evaluation criteria. Protest at 12‑13. In this regard, the protester lists various weaknesses and significant weaknesses--such as criticisms based on an excessive need for manual entries, absent or misleading error messages, timeouts and errors during planning and reporting workloads, and missing key capabilities in learning features--and asserts that these criticisms reflect “requirements of which the Offeror was not put on Notice.” Id. at 12. The protester also argues that all of the criticisms reflect areas that could be addressed by modifications and customizations during contract performance. Id. at 13.

The agency responds that each weakness and significant weakness was directly related to the specific “functional areas” of evaluation set out in the solicitation under the system testing factor. MOL at 17‑22. Specifically, the agency notes that the solicitation informed offerors that the agency would evaluate core functionality across several functional areas, which included usability and accessibility; learning and development; and performance and reliability. Id.; RFP at 158.

Based on the record before us, we find that the agency properly assessed EconSys's proposed system based on OPM's testing of the system under each of the stated functional areas. As noted, while agencies are not permitted to use unstated evaluation factors in evaluating proposals, an agency properly may take into account specific matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria, even when they are not expressly identified as evaluation criteria. See Logistics Mgmt. Inst., B‑419219, B‑419219.2, Dec. 30, 2020, at 4.

As an initial matter, we note that the protester does not dispute the agency's testing findings, but instead argues that the solicitation did not sufficiently notify offerors that the proposed system would be evaluated for the specific issues the agency found. See Protest at 12‑13. We find, however, that the solicitation described specific functional areas to include the system's navigation, user interface clarity, automated workflows, access to team management tools, system responsiveness, and error handling. RFP at 158. The solicitation further advised that the agency's evaluation of these functional areas would consider the “quality of the user experience, including usability, accessibility, and intuitiveness of the interface” and the “system's responsiveness, reliability, and ability to handle real-time transactions and workflows.” Id. The record shows that each of the weaknesses and significant weaknesses assessed upon testing EconSys's proposed system was specifically related to the evaluation criteria specifically identified in the solicitation's functional areas and stated evaluation considerations.

For example, the evaluators assessed a weakness because during the processing of certain personnel actions, EconSys's system required “extensive manual re-entry, and required fields not consistently obvious.” AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 17. The evaluators further explained that “[h]igh manual effort and thin field guidance appreciably elevate error rates, rework, and processing delays, increasing the likelihood of inconsistent records and audit findings.” Id. We find the agency's evaluation finding to be logically encompassed within the usability and accessibility functional area and contemplated by the stated evaluation considerations of “quality of the user experience, including usability” and “intuitiveness of the interface.” RFP at 158.

As another example, the evaluators found a significant weakness for missing key capabilities in the system's learning features, noting that certain “[a]dministrator‑specific features like the ability to configure courses were missing from the system” and that testers “received errors when trying to create courses, schedule sessions, upload material, or create assessments.” AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 18. The evaluators also noted that “instructor/administrator workflows appeared inefficient or incomplete.” Id. We find that these findings were contemplated by the solicitation, which included a functional area for learning and development and provided that the agency would evaluate the “system's responsiveness, reliability, and ability to handle real‑time transactions and workflows” as well as the “effectiveness of core capabilities.” RFP at 158.

In addition, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably criticized “EconSys's recognition that some items require modification as contract performance proceeds,” when the solicitation permitted such modifications as customization and configuration. Protest at 13. The solicitation, however, required that “at least 90 [percent] of the functional requirements [be] met through [out-of-the-box] or configuration capabilities” and emphasized that “[m]inimizing customization is crucial to meeting government timelines.”[8] RFP at 41, 147. Nothing in the record indicates, and the protester fails to demonstrate, that any of the weaknesses or significant weaknesses assessed by the agency could be resolved through configurations or customizations as contemplated in the solicitation. To the contrary, in assigning EconSys's proposal a rating of unacceptable under the system testing factor, the agency noted that because “Government testers [were] unable to complete key evaluation tasks due to significant usability, functionality, or performance issues,” EconSys's solution “does not provide a viable path to successful implementation.” AR, Tab 11, EconSys Evaluation Report at 19. On this record, we find no basis to object to the agency's evaluation, and assignment of an unacceptable rating, under this factor.

Competitive Range Determination

Finally, the protester challenges the agency's decision to exclude EconSys's proposal from the competitive range. In this regard, the protester argues that, but for the agency's failure to apply the stated evaluation criteria, EconSys would not have been eliminated from further consideration for award. Protest at 1‑2. The agency responds that EconSys's proposal was technically unacceptable as submitted, and that it was reasonably excluded from the competitive range because it was not among the most highly rated and did not have a realistic chance of award. MOL at 1‑2, 25.

As noted above, contracting agencies are not required to retain in the competitive range proposals that are not among the most highly rated or that the agency otherwise reasonably concludes have no realistic prospect of being selected for award. FAR 15.306(c); Program Insite, LLC, supra. Where a proposal is technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to become acceptable, exclusion from the competitive range is generally permissible. High Noon Unlimited Inc., B‑419268, Jan. 12, 2021, at 5.

Here, EconSys's proposal was excluded because the agency reasonably concluded that EconSys's proposal was technically unacceptable due to numerous significant weaknesses and deficiencies that presented “an unacceptable level or risk” and a failure to “demonstrate readiness for operational use.” Competitive Range Determination at 5. We see no basis to question the agency's determination that EconSys's technically unacceptable proposal, in comparison with two technically acceptable proposals, was not among the most highly rated and did not have a realistic prospect for award. See id. at 5, 7. It is well settled that a technically unacceptable proposal properly may be excluded from the competitive range. Enterprise Servs., LLC, B‑414513.2 et al., July 6, 2017, at 6; see TMC Design Corp., B‑296194.3, Aug. 10, 2005, at 4.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

---