Barbara_C | Shutterstock

Protest alleging that a solicitation for a task order exceeded the scope of the underlying IDIQ contract is denied. GAO found the task order did not exceed the scope of the IDIQ contract. And, in any event, the protester’s argument was not really about the scope of the task order; instead, the protester was essentially challenging the agency’s larger acquisition strategy. The protester surmised that strategy would ultimately violate  procurement regulations. But GAO found this argument merely anticipated allegedly improper conduct, so it was premature.

Background

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued an RFQ under the agency’s J6 Enterprise Technology Services IDIQ contract. The RFQ sought installation, configuration, and integration services as part of a plan to develop a new contract writing program for DoD.

Oracle America Inc. filed a protest arguing that the RFQ exceeded the scope of the underlying IDIQ contract, and that the RFQ improperly sought brand-name items without a justification.

The RFQ in this case, which sought services for the contract writing program, was related to another RFQ that sought software licenses for the same program. Oracle also protested the scope of the task order in the related RFQ. GAO denied that protest.

Legal Analysis

    • RFQ Did Not Exceed Scope of Underlying IDIQ Contract — Oracle argued that the DLA IDIQ contract was a general purpose IT support contract, and that the RFQ, which sought to convert a contract writing tool into a next-generation writing system, was beyond the scope fo the general IDIQ contract. But GAO found the IDIQ contract covered a broad range of IT services, including the type of software integration and installation services contemplated by the RFQ. The RFQ did not exceed the sope of the underlying IDIQ contract.
    • Oracle Was Really Challenging Agency’s Acquisition Strategy — Based on its review of the protest, GAO determined that Oracle’s objection was not really that the contemplated task order was beyond the scope of the IDIQ contract, but rather to DLA’s acquisition strategy. Oracle was concerned that the acquisition was advancing a government-owned solution for the contracting writing software instead of a commercial item solution mandated by the FAR. GAO found this argument merely anticipated improper agency action and thus was speculative and premature.
  • GAO Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Other Challenges to the RFQ — Under FASA, GAO can only hear a protest of a DoD task order if (1) the task order is valued in excess of $25 million, or (2) the protest challenges the scope of the task order. GAO had already found the task order did not exceed the scope of the IDIQ. Also, the value of the contemplated task order fell below the $25 million jurisdiction threshold. Thus, while Oracle raised other arguments challenging the RFQ, GAO did not have jurisdiction to consider them.

Oracle is represented by Craig A. Holman, Nathaniel E. Castellano, and Aime JH Joo of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LP. The agency is represented by Michael D. McPeak and Gregory S. Mathews of the Defense Logistics Agency. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.