Protest challenging award of a task order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. GAO cannot hear protests challenging a defense agency task order worth less than $25 million. Here, the task order was $6000 less than $25 million. The protester argued that GAO had jurisdiction because the value of the task order should have included an option. But GAO found that the order did not include and the agency did not evaluated the option. The protester also argued that the if the agency had properly evaluated the awardee’s price the value of the task order would have exceeded $25 million. GAO, however, reasoned that it only assesses the value of a task order based on the terms of the order itself. To do otherwise would make jurisdiction dependent on the merits of a protest’s substantive merits.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued a solicitation seeking development and sustainment services for the agency’s e-Commerce system. The competition was limited to holders of a DLA IDIQ contract.
DLA awarded the task order to Credence Management Solutions. An unsuccessful offeror, U.S. Information Technologies Corporation (USIT), protested, alleging DLA unreasonably evaluated quotations.
Under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, GAO is only authorized to hear protests of task orders issued by defense agencies if the task order’s value exceeds $25 million. Here, the task order awarded to Credence was for $24,993,820, which was only $6,180 below the jurisdictional threshold.
USIT argued that GAO had jurisdiction because the value of the task order should have included the price of the option to extend services under FAR 52.217-8. USIT claimed that the added value of the 6-month performance under this FAR provision would increase the value of the task order over $25 million.
But GAO noted that where a solicitation does not request pricing for the option under FAR 52.217-8 or provide for the evaluation of such prices, the option to extend cannot be considered as part of the value for the task order for purposes of determining jurisdiction. Here, the solicitation did not require vendors to submit prices for the option under FAR 52.217-8 and did not state that the agency would evaluate the option. DLA did not, in fact, evaluate the option, and the task order did not include a priced option to extend services. Because DLA did not include the option in the award, there was no basis for GAO to find that the hypothetical value of such an option should be added for purposes of determining jurisdiction.
USIT argued that GAO had jurisdiction because Credence should have quoted a higher price, and if DLA had properly evaluated proposals, it would have evaluated Credence’s price as higher. But GAO reasoned that it assesses the value of a dispute based on the terms of the order itself. To do otherwise would make jurisdiction dependent on the outcome of the protest’s substantive merits.
Finally, USIT argued that value of the task order should be considered higher because DLA likely modified the task order to add additional work. USIT based this argument on a conversation it had with DLA where the agency had discussed the possibility of adding work to the contract. But GAO found that USIT had not provided any evidence beyond speculation to show that a modification increasing work had actually occurred.
USIT is represented by David S. Black, Gregory R. Hallmark, and Hillary J. Freund of Holland & Knight, LLP. The awardee, Credence Management Solutions is represented by Pamela J. Mazza, Samuel S. Finnerty, Jacqueline K. Unger, and Jonathan I. Pomerance of Piliero Mazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Elizabeth Amato, Gregory Matthews, and Michael D. McPeak of the Defense Logistics Agency. GAO attorneys Jonathan L. Kang and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
