Protest challenging the issuance of a task order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. GAO can only hear protests in connection with task orders that exceed $25 million. Here, the task order was worth $800,000. The protester contended that while its protest was related to a task order, it was primarily focused on the agency’s violation of a regulation, not the task order per se. Thus, the protest was not “connected” to a task order. But GAO found that the protest remedy would require termination of the task order, so the protest was “connected” to the task order. GAO lacked jurisdiction over the protest.
ServFed filed a protest challenging the award of a task order for medical services on an Air Force base. ServeFed contended the Air Force erred in not awarding the contract through the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) business development program.
But the Air Force noted that under 10 U.S.C. § 2304, protests filed “in connection with the issuance . . . of a task order or delivery order” under a defense agency IDIQ are not authorized unless the task order exceeds $25 million. Here, the task order was only worth $807,000.
ServeFed argued that this jurisdictional bar did not apply. While its protest was “related” to a task order, ServeFed argued, it was not “in connection with the issuance of a task order.” The task order provided ServeFed with a reason to know the basis of its protest. But the protest was really concerned with the agency’s violation of a regulation, not with the task order itself.
GAO, however, was not persuaded. GAO reasoned that the requested remedy in this case would involve termination of a task order. Where a protest involves termination of a task order, it is necessarily “in connection” with the task order. Because ServeFed’s protest was in fact connected to a task order, and the task order was well under $25 million, GAO lacked jurisdiction to hear the protest.
ServeFed is represented by Edward J. Tolchin of Offit Kurman Attorneys At Law. The government is represented by Alexis J. Bernstein, Phillip E. Reiman, and Heather M. Mandelkehr of the U.S. Air Force. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.