Updated June 2, 2025
The plaintiff, Telesto Group, LLC (“Telesto”), filed this bid protest challenging the
conduct by the defendant, acting through the United States Army (“Army”), of the prototype phase of the Enterprise Business System-Convergence (“EBS-C”) program. The EBS-C program was initiated under the Army’s “other transaction” authority (“OT authority”), 10 U.S.C. § 4022, to develop a solution to consolidate five Army business systems and improve their efficiency.
In establishing the project, the Army announced that at the conclusion of the prototyping
stage the successful participant could receive a follow-on production contract. The prototyping stage of the EBS-C program would be conducted through a series of competitive steps. Phase 1 of the program consisted of a multistep series of prototyping tasks. The Army would conduct an evaluation of the participants after each step and determine which participants would be invited to advance to the next step.
The defendant-intervenor, Accenture Federal Services, LLC (“Accenture”), was the only
participant in the prototyping process to be invited to continue to step 7, the final prototyping step, that could lead to a follow-on production contract for the solution developed in the prototyping phase of the project.
Telesto challenges the Army’s evaluations of both steps 4 and 5 of the project, alleging
they were arbitrary and capricious. Telesto alleges that although Accenture faked a key
component of its technological demonstration at step 4, the Army failed to detect the fake
outcome and allowed Accenture to proceed to step 5. Telesto also alleges that the Army changed the requirements for the key technological demonstrations at step 5, making it easier for Accenture to meet the new requirements. Both missteps, Telesto asserts, improperly affected the Army’s decision to eliminate Telesto after step 6 and to invite only Accenture to proceed to step 7.
In addition to the Army’s alleged arbitrary and capricious conduct of the evaluation
process, Telesto alleges that the Army violated the statutory requirement that OT-authority projects include “at least one nontraditional defense contractor . . . participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.” 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1)(A).
In response, both the defendant and defendant-intervenor have moved to dismiss the
protest. They argue that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to consider projects
conducted pursuant to the Army’s OT authority. In the alternative, they argue that Telesto failed to raise its claims in a timely manner, as they arose during the prototype process, and the claims are now waived. The defendant and defendant-intervenor have also moved for judgment on the administrative record, arguing that the Army did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in its conduct of the prototype phase of the EBS-C program, and that Accenture meets the OTauthority statute’s requirement of significant participation by a nontraditional defense contractor.
The motions to dismiss are granted in part. The court lacks jurisdiction to consider
Telesto’s claims of arbitrary and capricious conduct in the prototype phase of the EBS-C
program. Jurisdiction exists, however, to consider whether the Army violated 10 U.S.C.
§ 4022(d)(1)(A). On that issue, Telesto’s protest is denied, as the Army did not violate that statute.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to resolve challenges to OT projects
remains uncertain. Several judges of this court have found jurisdiction to exist, but the Federal Circuit has not squarely resolved the issue. The defendants’ motions for judgment on the administrative record are granted in part and denied in part. Even if jurisdiction exists, however, Telesto’s protest fails on the merits, because the record reflects that the Army made no prejudicial errors in its evaluations of steps 4 and 5 of the prototyping portions of the EBS-C program and its decision at step 7 was rational. Accordingly, the protest is dismissed in part and denied in part.
Read The Full Decision Document Here.
Updated May 16, 2025
Courts side with Accenture in fight for US Army Enterprise Business Systems – Convergence contract award
Earlier today, the Courts announced that judgment is entered in favor of the US Army and Accenture, thus giving the green light for this contract to move forward.
This award, which is expected to exceed $1B in total valuation over the life of the program, builds on a Phase One OTA awarded to Leidos (W519TC2392056) and two others (Groundswell and IBM) in late 2023.
Enterprise Business Systems – Convergence (EBS-C) is the Army’s business modernization and transformation effort to simplify, streamline, standardize and unify business operations while improving auditability. The pending end-of-service life for the Army’s current enterprise resource planning systems (ERPs) and the need to support increasingly complex operational requirements, provide the opportunity to converge enterprise business systems into a common, modernized platform that will more effectively enable multi-domain operations in large scale combat operations.
The converged EBS system will combine the Army’s ERP programs and improve system agility, capacity, speed and efficiency by seamlessly integrating 24 major Army capabilities across the finance and logistics enterprise. Once merged, the EBS-C system will integrate with enduring systems, providing an all-inclusive view all the time.
View the EBS-C PMO fact sheet.
Added November 1, 2024
Groundswell has gone to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with a protest against the Army’s award of a contract to consolidate a group of business systems using the latest version of SAP’s software.
In early October, Accenture’s U.S. federal subsidiary won the contract known as Enterprise Business Systems – Convergence. Accenture Federal Services is a long-time incumbent and provider of SAP software to many agencies, including the Army.
Groundswell filed its protest at the court on Wednesday under the name of one of its subsidiaries, Telesto Group…
Source: Groundswell challenges Army’s award of business system consolidation contract. By Nick Wakeman, November 1, 2024. NextGov.