Agency: Department of the Navy
Decided: December 5, 2016
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: The jurisdiction of the General Accounting Office (GAO) to consider protests of task and delivery orders awarded by civilian agencies expired on September 31, 2016.
Wyle Laboratories, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAVAIR) to issue a task order for comprehensive life cycle and sustainment support services to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
On November 15, 2015, the Navy issued an RFP to procure life cycle logistics and sustainment support services under a single cost plus fixed fee, level of effort task order. The solicitation was for a task order against an already existing multiple award, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) contract. Both Wyle and Booz Allen were existing contract holders.
On September 28, 2016, the Navy notified protester Wyle that the task order had been issued to Booz Allen. Wyle filed a protest challenging the award.
Agency and Awardee Response
The Agency and Booz Allen respond that the GAO’s jurisdiction to hear protests of “orders issued against task and delivery order contracts entered into by civilian agencies under Title 41” expired on September 30, 2016. Because the GSA is a civilian agency, the Agency and the Awardee argue the protest cannot stand.
Protester Counter Response
Protester argues the GAO does have jurisdiction to hear the protest, as the task order was issued by the Navy, which is a Department of Defense (DOD) agency. This is significant, as the GAO does have jurisdiction to hear protests in connection with task and delivery orders in excess of $10 million in connection with Title 10. Protester notes the evaluation was performed by DOD personnel; the performance of the task order is funded by DOD; the task order is to support a “Major DOD weapon system; and the procurement will be subject to some DOD regulations. Consequently, protester argues jurisdiction based on the agency “that issued the task order, rather than the agency that awarded the task order contract.”
The GAO disagreed with protester’s argument, holding, “we lack jurisdiction to hear the instant protest because it concerns a task order issued against a multiple-award IDIQ contract vehicle awarded by a civilian agency, under the authority and procedures set forth in Title 41.” Consequently, the protest was dismissed.