The Army counter-UAS task order protest: Oasis Systems’ fifth GAO filing on one solicitation reportedly targets the Army’s corrective action on a $665 million order

The Army counter-UAS task order protest is a fifth GAO filing, and the open one reportedly challenges the Army’s corrective action

The fifth filing in the Army counter-UAS task order protest came on November 5, 2026. That day Oasis Systems, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Astrion Group, LLC, filed B-423870.5 at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The filing reportedly challenges the Army’s corrective action on a $665 million order to Parsons. That is a reported value, with no stated ceiling, funded status or obligation. The order is reportedly for developing, testing and evaluating counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS). GAO’s decision is due February 16, 2027.

The stake is new-business capture and conflict exposure. No incumbent contract is identified as at risk. The order was reportedly competed among holders of the General Services Administration’s OASIS+ (One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Plus) multiple-award acquisition vehicle. The company name Oasis Systems and the OASIS+ vehicle are separate things. A firm without a seat reaches this work only as a subcontractor or teammate of whoever the Army’s new award decision names. Oasis reportedly argues the Army moved much of the integration work to another contract. That would leave program management as the requirement. Some firms sell counter-drone products and also bid evaluation or program-management work for the Army or other Department of Defense (DoD) customers. For them, the Army is reportedly re-examining that exact conflict on a live order. This is a contested existing procurement, not an open opportunity.

• Established facts: the protester, the agency, the solicitation number and every filing date.
• Reported claims: the awardee, the value, the vehicle, the product area and the protest’s target.
• Not identified: any incumbent or predecessor contract for this requirement.

Oasis has filed five protests on one Army solicitation in about 14 months

Oasis has filed five protests under one solicitation number, W31P4Q-25-R-0080, between August 29, 2025 and November 5, 2026. The four dismissals list no reason or grounds. The fifth is open. The filings name the Army, not the product area.

Three points stay open:

• The grounds for the first four filings are not identified.
• Whether the three 2025 filings concern the counter-UAS requirement is not identified.
• The Army’s position on the reported integration shift is not identified.

GAO has 100 days to decide a protest under 31 U.S.C. 3554. Day 100 after November 5 is Saturday, February 13, 2027. Monday, February 15 is Presidents Day, so the due date rolls to February 16. GAO dismissed B-423870.4 sixteen days after filing, well before its December 24 due date. In early October the Army reportedly agreed to re-evaluate the conflict allegation and the technical evaluation. It also reportedly agreed to re-examine cost and price and make a new award decision. That agreement fits the early dismissal. The dismissal lists no reason.

If the Army’s reported corrective action proceeds as described, the award decision is open again. A new decision could keep or replace Parsons. I would not build a revenue forecast on an award date for this order. A contracts or capture lead cannot tell from five filings which date will hold.

Oasis reportedly argues the requirement left standing is program management, which would change what the $665 million buys

Oasis’s November 5 protest, B-423870.5, reportedly argues the solicitation no longer matches the Army’s needs and should be reworked. Oasis reportedly argues the Army first meant the order to support an end-to-end integrated program office. It also argues the Army has since moved much of the integration effort to another contract in a different organization. In Oasis’s account, what remains is a program management requirement that is very different from the original solicitation.

That account is Oasis’s characterization. The order’s number, award date and OASIS+ domain are not identified. DoD contract-action data typically appears in public award systems about 90 days after award. An award made after about mid-August 2026 would not be visible yet. One made in the weeks before September 15 would appear between late November and mid-December. Which contract took the integration work, and which organization holds it, is not identified. If the order is as reported, the $665 million is federal acquisition spending with no stated ceiling or funded status and no stated obligation. I would not size a counter-UAS market from that figure.

1. GAO decides B-423870.5 by February 16, 2027, or dismisses it sooner if the Army takes further corrective action.
2. The Army finishes its re-evaluation of the conflict allegation, the technical evaluation and cost and price, then makes a new award decision.
3. The Army amends the solicitation to match the narrower requirement, which is Oasis’s requested outcome, or proceeds on the existing one.

Suppose the narrower requirement holds. A counter-drone product maker would then find less evaluation and integration work in this order than the reported counter-UAS scope suggests. If the Army restores the original scope, the evaluation work returns, and so does the conflict question.

Parsons and Oasis are the only named competitors, and the conflict question reaches any firm that both sells and tests

Two companies are named in this contest. Parsons is the reported awardee. Oasis Systems, an Astrion Group subsidiary, is the protester. The other offerors and the bid count are not identified, so do not assume a two-bidder field.

Oasis reportedly alleges that Parsons makes C-UAS products and could end up evaluating its own products. The protest reportedly calls that an unmitigated impaired-objectivity conflict of interest. An impaired-objectivity conflict arises when a firm in an evaluation role would assess its own or an affiliate’s products. Its judgment could then be biased. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) covers it in its organizational conflict of interest rules at subpart 9.5. The usual remedies are excluding the firm or accepting a mitigation plan. GAO has made no finding here. The Army’s reported re-evaluation is the step that decides whether the allegation holds. For a product maker, I rank this conflict question above the scope question. The Army has reportedly agreed to re-evaluate the conflict on this order. The scope claim rests on Oasis’s account alone.

Three groups face the Army counter-UAS task order protest differently:

• OASIS+ pool holders that sell products. Any firm that sells sensors, jammers or effectors and also bids evaluation work faces the same question Oasis raised about Parsons.
• Product makers and new entrants. Your products may be tested under an order whose evaluator belongs to a competitor or an affiliate.
• Agency-side contracting and program officers. An evaluation structure that cannot show who evaluates which product invites the same challenge.

What a pool holder, a small business and a product maker should do before the Army’s new award decision

This is a WATCH posture. The Army has not opened a new competition, and the order was reportedly limited to OASIS+ pool holders. Each reader has a check to run against their own records:

• Founders and BD leads at OASIS+ pool holders: list every product line your firm sells to the same customer set where you also perform test, evaluation or program-management work. Confirm a written conflict mitigation plan covers each one before your next proposal.
• Small business without an OASIS+ seat: do not chase this order directly. Map which test-range, instrumentation or analysis tasks a prime could not perform itself, and prepare a capability brief for whoever the new award decision names.
• Counter-UAS product makers and new entrants: before submitting a product for evaluation, ask the program office which entity runs the test events and who holds your performance data.
• DIB primes, DIB subs and mid-market teaming leads: pull your own award history and list every teaming partner that also sells products into counter-drone work.
• Agency-side contracting officers and program officers: document how each evaluator is walled off from affiliated product lines before any solicitation amendment.

A named new awardee would move a small business toward teaming. So would an amended solicitation that opens subcontract roles for range, instrumentation or analysis work. A GAO dismissal plus an Army statement that the order covers program management only would move this to IGNORE FOR NOW for product makers. I hold WATCH. I would not commit proposal budget on the strength of this protest.

FAQ

What did Oasis Systems file at GAO on November 5, 2026?

Oasis filed B-423870.5, its fifth protest under solicitation W31P4Q-25-R-0080 for the Army. It reportedly challenges the Army’s corrective action. GAO’s decision is due February 16, 2027, and the case is open.

Is the $665 million Army task order a counter-drone buy?

It was reported as a counter-UAS development, test and evaluation order. Oasis reportedly argues the requirement left standing is program management. The $665 million is a reported value with no stated ceiling or funded status and no stated obligation. Do not use it to size counter-UAS spending.

What is an impaired-objectivity conflict of interest?

It is a conflict where a firm in an evaluation role would assess its own or an affiliate’s products. That could bias its judgment. The FAR’s subpart 9.5 covers it. The Army’s reported re-evaluation decides whether it applies to Parsons. No finding exists yet.

Can a firm without an OASIS+ seat get any of this work?

Only as a subcontractor or teammate. The order was reportedly competed among OASIS+ pool holders. The practical route is a capability brief to whoever the Army’s new award decision names. Until that decision, there is no awardee to approach.

Why is the GAO due date February 16 and not February 13?

GAO has 100 days. Day 100 after November 5 is Saturday, February 13. The following Monday is Presidents Day, so the due date moves to Tuesday, February 16. GAO can dismiss sooner if the Army takes further corrective action. The September filing was dismissed after sixteen days, in the same weeks the Army reportedly agreed to corrective action.

What would show the order is no longer a counter-drone requirement?

An Army statement, an amended solicitation or a new award notice that drops the test and evaluation scope would show it. Neither the contract that took the integration work nor the organization holding it is identified.