GAO dismissed as untimely a protest challenging the agency’s decision to modify a competitor’s IDIQ and migrate the protester’s work to that contractor via task order. The protester argued it did not definitively know about the agency’s plans until it posted a notice of the modification and task order issuance. However, GAO found that the agency had informed the protester that it would not extend its contract and that it would migrate services to another contractor more than a month before. Further, the protester participated in transition activities, including submitting proposals for bridge work and referring its employees to the follow-on contractor. While the protester argued that it lacked “definitive” knowledge of its protest grounds prior to the posting of the agency’s notices, GAO found it had sufficient information to bring its protest well before then.
Magnum Multimedia protested the Department of Labor’s issuance of a task order for enterprise web support services to Insignia Federal Group LLC, arguing that the task order requirements and the modification of the underlying IDIQ contract allegedly for the purpose of issuing the task order, are beyond the scope of the underlying IDIQ contract.
Magnum and Insignia were each awarded separate IDIQ contracts. Under its contract, Magnum provides web support services to DOL’s Office of the CIO. As Magnum’s IDIQ was approaching its expiration date, DOL prepared to modify Insignia’s IDIQ to allow for the provision of these services. On August 25, Magnum was informed that the web support services would be migrated to Insignia’s IDIQ, with a task order expected to begin performance on September 16.
On September 9 and 14, DOL asked Magnum to submit two proposals for limited work that would remain past the expiration of its IDIQ contract. Magnum did so and received two task orders for the relevant work. According to the agency, Magnum also assisted with transitioning the web support services work to Insignia, including directing its employees to contact Insignia’s human resources department. On September 22 and 23, DOL posted notices regarding the modification to Insignia’s IDIQ contract and the issuance of a task order. This protest followed.
Magnum questioned the agency’s decision to modify Insignia’s IDIQ and argued that the task order requirements were outside the scope of the original contract. The agency and intervenor argued this challenge was untimely.
GAO agreed, noting that Magnum knew on August 25 that the agency planned to issue Insignia a task order providing for the work currently performed by Magnum. At that time, Magnum began participating in transition activities. According to the agency, for Magnum’s protest to be considered timely, it needed to be filed within 10 days of the agency’s August 25 communication. At the latest, Magnum should have known its basis for protest by September 9, when the agency asked it to submit proposals for limited work prior to the transition to Insignia. Because Magnum did not file its protest until October 4, the agency argued it should be considered untimely.
Magnum argued that it filed its protest within 10 days of the agency’s notice of the IDIQ modification and task order, and therefore GAO should find it timely. GAO disagreed. While Magnum argued it did not definitively know of the agency’s plans until those notices were issued, GAO explained that a protester need not wait for perfect knowledge before filing a protest. In this case, Magnum had clear notice of DOL’s intention to migrate its work to Insignia. Even if the agency’s first communication was not sufficient, GAO found that the request for proposals for limited work gave Magnum definite knowledge that its services would not continue. GAO also found Magnum’s protest undercut by its support for the transition of work, and that its out-of-scope arguments could have been raised much earlier.
While GAO found some merit to Magnum’s assertion that it had no basis to believe that the agency would increase the value of Insignia’s IDIQ, it found this argument subsumed by the challenge to the task order award. GAO concluded that Magnum would not have challenged the modification had the agency continued to have Magnum provide the web support services.
Magnum Multimedia is represented by Isaias “Cy” Alba IV, Katherine B. Burrows, Lauren R. Brier, and Meghan F. Leemon of PilieroMazza PLLC. Insignia Federal Group LLC is represented by Jon W. Burd of Wiley Rein LLP. The government is represented by Robert Proudfoot, and Jose Otero, Department of Labor. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
