The Army's $665 million counter-drone task order is stalled again, and this time the protester is asking the service to rework the solicitation itself rather than simply rescore proposals. Oasis Systems filed a second bid protest at the Government Accountability Office on Nov. 5 arguing that the Army's solicitation no longer matches what the service actually plans to buy, Washington Technology reported. The task order, which covers development, testing and evaluation of counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS), went to Parsons Corp.
The new filing follows a first protest that forced the Army into corrective action in early October. GAO now has until Feb. 16 to decide the second challenge, so the award will not be settled before then unless the Army changes course.
How the First Oasis Protest Forced the Army to Reopen the Parsons Award
Oasis first went to GAO on Sept. 15. According to AviationNews, the filing "takes aim at the task order competition governing the development, testing, and evaluation of military Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS)."
That protest made two arguments. The first was an organizational conflict of interest: Parsons builds counter-drone hardware of its own, and Oasis argued that a manufacturer should not be the contractor helping the Army test and compare systems that compete with its product lines. "Parsons should not have won this award as an active manufacturer of C-UAS systems, as the company could potentially end up evaluating its own hardware and software," Oasis stated in its filing, as quoted by AviationNews. The second argument attacked the Army's technical evaluation, with Oasis alleging scoring flaws in how the service reviewed proposals.
At the time, AviationNews reported that GAO faced a Dec. 24 deadline to rule. The agency never had to. "The Army agreed to take corrective action in early October, saying it would re-evaluate both the possible conflict and technical evaluation of the proposals," Washington Technology reported. The Army also said it would take another look at the cost/price evaluation and then make a new award decision.
Washington Technology described the outcome as Oasis winning the first round of the dispute. Corrective action of this kind typically ends a pending protest, because the decision under challenge is no longer the Army's final word. But it also hands the agency room to define the scope of its own fix, and the second protest takes issue with that corrective action.
Why Oasis Says the $665M Solicitation No Longer Fits the Army's Needs
The second protest moves the fight from how the Army graded proposals to what the Army asked for in the first place. "But Oasis is now arguing that the Army needs to rework the solicitation because it no longer reflects the service branch's needs," Washington Technology reported.
According to the outlet, the Army was originally going to use the task order to support an end-to-end integrated program office. Since then, the service shifted much of the integration effort to another contract within a different organization. What remains, Oasis argues, is a requirement for program management services, which the company says is very different from the original solicitation.
That distinction matters for protest law. An agency that re-evaluates proposals under corrective action generally scores them against the solicitation as written. If the underlying requirement has changed materially, a protester can argue that every offeror bid against a scope the government no longer intends to buy, and that a fair competition requires amending the solicitation and accepting revised proposals. Oasis is effectively asking the Army to rework the solicitation rather than only re-evaluate the existing proposals.
The change in scope could also reshape the conflict question that drove the first protest. Oasis built its original conflict argument around Parsons evaluating counter-drone systems that compete with its own. If the integration work has moved elsewhere and the remaining effort is mostly program management, the Army could argue the conflict risk has narrowed, while Oasis could argue the entire competition needs to start over under the new requirement. The available reporting does not include a response from the Army or Parsons to the second protest.
What GAO's Feb. 16 Deadline Means for the C-UAS Program
GAO's Feb. 16 deadline sets the outer limit on how long the dispute can run at the watchdog. Washington Technology reported the date along with the filing: "Oasis filed its new protest on Nov. 5. A decision is due Feb. 16."
In the meantime, the Army's corrective action and the new challenge leave the C-UAS development, testing and evaluation work unsettled. The original award to Parsons is under re-evaluation, and the reporting does not indicate that the Army has made a new award decision. If GAO sides with Oasis, the Army would likely need to amend the solicitation to reflect the narrower program management scope and request new proposals. If GAO denies the protest, the Army can complete its re-evaluation of conflict, technical and cost/price factors and make a fresh award, which could again go to Parsons or to Oasis.
The stakes extend beyond one award. AviationNews described the contract as "a central pillar in the military’s broader effort to field integrated sensor-to-shooter interception capabilities across multi-domain battlefields." That is AviationNews's characterization, and it explains why a prolonged dispute over who tests and evaluates these systems draws attention.
What It Means for Contractors
The Oasis case shows how corrective action can open a second front in a protest. Agencies often treat corrective action as a way to end a dispute quickly by re-evaluating and re-awarding. Contractors on the losing side should read the corrective action notice closely: if the agency's requirement has changed since proposals came in, the scope of the fix itself can be protested.
For firms that both build products and provide test and evaluation support, the first Oasis protest is a reminder that impaired-objectivity conflicts remain a live protest ground. Companies pursuing evaluation work in markets where they also sell hardware should prepare conflict mitigation plans before submitting proposals, not after an award draws a challenge.
For awardees, the case shows that an award can be reopened more than once. Parsons, which according to Oasis designs and manufactures its own counter-drone systems, now waits on both the Army's re-evaluation and a GAO ruling on the second protest.
Program management and integration support for counter-drone efforts is also moving between contracting vehicles and organizations. Companies tracking C-UAS opportunities should watch for the separate integration contract Washington Technology referenced, and for any amended solicitation the Army issues if GAO sustains the new protest.
