• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

DynCorp International, LLC, B-402349, March 15, 2010

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • March 24, 2010
  • ID/IQTask Orders

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of the Army

Disposition: Protest sustained.

Keywords: Task order request for proposal; Indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: An agency may not issue a task order that is outside the scope of the original ID/IQ contract. The fact that there may be some small overlap in the services in the task order with those required under the ID/IQ contracts does not permit an agency to purchase other services under the ID/IQ contracts that were not reasonably contemplated when the ID/IQ contracts were issued.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

In 2007, the Department of the Army awarded five indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to five different firms. These ID/IQ contracts were the result of a request for proposals (RFQ) for program and operations support for the Department of Defense Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office, an office that provides technology to federal agencies and partner nations engaged in counter-drug and counter-narcoterrorism operations. The scope of the work to be performed under the ID/IQ contracts, as stated in the performance work statement, was narrowly limited to providing the “necessary goods and services required … to support the counter-narcoterrorism mission….” While these goods and services were to be provided worldwide, the performance work statement also stated that the current “primary countries of interest” were Colombia and Afghanistan. The solicitation for the ID/IQ contracts also included three sample task orders that included sample performance work statements, in order to illustrate representative task order requests that would be awarded to the ID/IQ contract holders.

Following the award of the ID/IQ contracts, the Army issued two task order requests. DynCorp International, LLC, which does not hold one of the ID/IQ contracts with the Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office, protested the issuance of these task order requests as being outside the scope of the underlying ID/IQ contracts.

The first task order request sought mentoring and training services for the Afghan Ministry of the Interior and Afghan National Police, while the second task order request sought facility maintenance and logistics support for the first task order request. (in particular, support for the Afghan National Police Development Program at 15 bases in Afghanistan). While the Afghan National Police consists of a variety of organizations related to law enforcement, safety, security and counter-insurgency activities, only two of these organizations have a mission directly involving counter-drug operations. A portion of the task order requests sought 100 mentors, with approximately 30 designated as key personnel; however, only one of these mentors was to provide training for the Afghan Border Police, the only included organization involved in counter-narcoterrorism operations. In fact, none of the descriptions of the mentoring and training tasks included in the task order requests described or mentioned responsibilities directly related to counter-narcoterrorism. As such, DynCorp alleged that the proposed task orders were outside the intended scope of the underlying ID/IQ contracts and should not have been issued.

GAO has always had jurisdiction over protests that allege that the task order increased the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which it was issued. Therefore, GAO had jurisdiction to consider DynCorp’s protest. In determining whether a task order is beyond the scope of the contract, GAO and the courts look to whether there is a material difference between the task order and the original ID/IQ contract.

The Army countered DynCorp’s allegations by stating that there was a nexus between the counter-insurgency activities (as described in the task order requests) and counter-narcoterrorism (as described in the underlying ID/IQ contracts) because the insurgency in Afghanistan is funded by drug trafficking, and therefore, any counter-insurgency organization is necessarily involved in countering illegal drug trafficking. The Army also argued that the language of the ID/IQ contracts was broad enough to include training for all police and Interior Ministry activities, and is not limited to counter-narcoterrorism.

GAO’s review of the record determined only a small portion of the requested training services in the first task order request related to counter-narcoterrorism or supported the counter-narcoterrorism mission of the Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office. The fact that a small number of the requested services overlapped with those required under the ID/IQ contracts was not enough to permit the Army to purchase those services that were not reasonably contemplated when the ID/IQ contracts were issued. Furthermore, GAO’s review of the task order request for facilities maintenance relating to the first task order request revealed an even larger disconnect between the original ID/IQ contracts and the task order request, with the latter essentially representing a logistics contract to provide dining facilities, maintain water systems, provide HVAC services, and provide medical services.

GAO dismissed the Army’s argument that the services sought by the task order requests were within the scope of the ID/IQ contracts because the Afghan insurgency is largely funded by drug trafficking. Following a review of the ID/IQ contracts and the task order requests, the GAO concluded that the ID/IQ contract was narrowly tailored and did not provide for counter-insurgency support. GAO also rejected the Army’s argument that the sample task order requests provided in the solicitation for the ID/IQ contracts did not put potential offerors on notice that training outside of counter-narcoterrorism training could be provided. GAO’s review of the three sample task order requests in the ID/IQ revealed a clear connection between the activities or technology requested and counter-narcoterrorism operations.

As such, GAO sustained DynCorp’s protest, and recommended that the Army cancel the task order requests and either conduct a full and open competition for the services, or prepare the appropriate justification required by Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) to limit the competition.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC

July 22, 2021

Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

May 27, 2021

Matter of Alliant Solutions, LLC

May 24, 2018

AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., B-407720; B-407720.2, January 30, 2013

February 13, 2013

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845