Protest alleging that a solicitation for a task order was beyond the scope of the underlying IDIQ contract is denied in part and dismissed in part. The protester held an IDIQ contract for the provision of medical staff from four market segments. The task order solicitation sought staff from two of those segments. The protester contended the task order solicitation was beyond the scope of the IDIQ Â because the IDIQ solicitation only contemplated task orders from a single market segment. GAO rejected this argument, finding that it was unreasonable to preclude the agency from ordering services from multiple market segments in a single task order. The protester also argued that the solicitation denied the company a fair opportunity to compete. But GAO dismissed this protest ground because the value of the task order was under the $25 million jurisdictional bar on task order protests.
The Defense Health Agency published a solicitation for the award of IDIQ contracts to provide medical professional staffing. The IDIQ solicitation required contractors to provide staffing covering four different market segments: physician services, dental services, ancillary services, and nursing services. Global Dynamics, LLC submitted a proposal for both nursing and ancillary services, but was only awarded an IDIQ contract for ancillary services.
The Air Force issues a task order proposal request under the DHA IDIQ seeking staff from both nursing and ancillary market segments. Global Dynamics filed a protest challenging the terms of the solicitation. Global Dynamics contended that IDIQ contract only contemplated task orders from a single market segment, so the Air Force’s solicitation exceeded the scope of the IDIQ.
When a protester alleges that a task order is beyond the scope of the underlying IDIQ, GAO examines whether the order is materially different from the IDIQ. The inquiry focuses on whether the order is one that potential offerors would have reasonably anticipated.
GAO found that the solicitation for the ancillary and nursing services were within the scope of the IDIQ. The IDIQ solicitation specified four market segments from which contract holders would provide medical staff. The solicitation for the task order requested services from two of the four market segments contemplated by the IDIQ. GAO reasoned that Global Dynamics’ position was unreasonable: an agency that conducted a single procurement for medical staff in four different market segments should not be precluded from ordering services from multiple segments in a single task order.
Global Dynamics also argued that the Air Force’s decision to include two market segments in the task order solicitation prevented Global Dynamics from having a fair opportunity to compete under FAR 16.505. But GAO dismissed this argument, noting that under 10 U.S.C. §2304, GAO can only hear task order protests if the order (1) is valued at more than $25 million, or (2) the protester contends the order exceeds the scope of the IDIQ. GAO had already found that the order did not exceed the scope of the IDIQ. Because the task order was only worth about $8.6 million, GAO did not have jurisdiction to consider Global Dynamics’ fair opportunity argument.
Global Dynamics is represented by Edward J. Tolchin of Offit Kurman Attorneys At Law. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Heather M. Mandelkehr, Rachel Reilly, and Alexis Bernstein of the U.S. Air Force. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participating in the preparation of the decision.
