• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

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

Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc. and The Healing Staff, Inc. v. U.S. and Luke & Associates, Inc. and Terrahealth, Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • June 10, 2010
  • ID/IQOption Exercise

Link: Court of Federal Claims Opinion, Nos. 10-106C, 10-127C

Agency: U.S. Air Force

Disposition: Protest Granted.

Keywords: Exercise of Options; ID/IQ Contracts

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: In exercising the option on an ID/IQ contract, the Government must be able to consider the price element and if all contractual price commitments have been removed from the master ID/IQ contract, the Government may not exercise the option. It is not enough that the ID/IQ contract required consideration of price at the task order level, there must be limits in the ID/IQ contract itself prior to the exercise of an option.

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

In a request for proposals (RFP) issued in 2005 for a minimum of five indefinite delivery /indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for a four-year period, with two three-year options by the Air Force, offerors were required to submit pricing info including not-to-exceed (NTE) ceiling rates for sixty-eight health care service staffing positions.

The RFP also included an economic price adjustment to provide adjustments to contract price as a result of economic changes as the contracts aged. Contracts were eventually awarded to five companies, not including Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc. (Magnum) or The Healing Staff, Inc. (Healing). Magnum initiated two separate protests. One with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which found in favor of Magnum and the other with GAO, which recommended award to Magnum, after which an ID/IQ contract was awarded.

The Air Force found later that contractors were exceeding NTE rates even though the contracts stated that prices could not be more than the NTE price. The Air Force ultimately agreed to remove requirement to comply with NTE rates and issued contract modifications. The Air Force chose to exercise four contractors’ options and gave notice to Magnum and Healing that their options would not be exercised. Both filed protests with GAO, which were dismissed because the protests concerned matters outside scope of GAO bid protest function.

Magnum and Healing filed motions for reconsideration with GAO, which were not acted upon. The companies, therefore, filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims asserting that because NTE pricing was eliminated from the contracts, the Air Force had exercised unpriced options violating Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §17.207. Healing also alleged violation of §17.207 and further alleged that the Air Force wrongfully failed to disclose that it would use performance evaluations in determining whether to exercise options.

After establishing subject matter jurisdiction and standing, the Court of Federal Claims held that the Air Force failed to comply with FAR §17.207, specifically subsection (f), which states that for the Government to validly exercise an option, “the option must have been evaluated as part of the initial competition and be exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract.”

The Court of Federal Claims stated that following the modifications rendering the NTE rates non-binding, the price evaluation conducted at the time of the initial award was no longer useful. When the options were exercised, the NTE rates were only advisory, and contractors could increase their labor rates at will. Therefore, the relative costs to the Government of various contractors’ options, was entirely unknown. The pricing of the options, as exercised, was not “evaluated as part of the initial competition.”

The Air Force also failed to satisfy the second clause of FAR §17.207(f), that the option was “exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract.” The Court of Federal Claims held that it is impermissible to evaluate relative cost based only upon non-binding proposals, because such a comparison is not meaningful. Once the Air Force removed the NTE rates, it removed its only basis of meaningfully comparing the cost to the Government of the contractors’ options. The price of the options was not “reasonably determinable” from the ID/IQ contracts.

The Court of Federal Claims also stated that, “the statutory requirement that cost to the government be considered in the evaluation and selection of proposals for award is not satisfied by promise that cost or price will be considered later, during award of individual task orders.” The Air Force cannot substitute competition at the task order level for compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.

Finally, the Court of Federal Claims held that the maximum contract value for the ID/IQ contract did not establish price either. The contracting officer looked at the total contract value and made a guess as to how to divide it between the base period and two option periods, which is not “evaluated” price within the meaning of CICA and FAR.

As for remedy, the Court of Federal Claims ordered injunctive relief since the plaintiffs succeeded on the merits of the case, proved that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, identified a number of mechanisms other than the contract options that the Air Force could use during pendency of an injunction, and public interest weighed in favor of granting the injunction.

Share

Related Posts

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

February 13, 2013

Cornische Aviation & Maintenance, LTD, B-405013.4, January 25, 2013

January 31, 2013

U.S. Hotel Sourcing, LLC, B-406726, August 13, 2012

August 22, 2012

California Industrial Facilities Resources, Inc., d/b/a CAMSS Shelters, B-406146, February 22, 2012

March 7, 2012

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
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • 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
  • Facility Clearance
  • 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
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • 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
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • 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:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 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

+1-703-556-0411