B-400173: Jul 3, 2008
- Full Report:
Colliers International protests the decision of the Department of the Army to obtain services to evaluate the feasibility of the U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys Housing Alternative Plan Concept (HHAP) under a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) task order contract. Colliers maintains that these services are outside the scope of the ID/IQ contract.
We deny the protest.
B-400173, Colliers International, July 3, 2008
Protest that agency improperly obtained services outside scope of multiple-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract is denied where the services were reasonably encompassed by the contract at issue.
Colliers International protests the decision of the Department of the Army to obtain services to evaluate the feasibility of the U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys Housing Alternative Plan Concept (HHAP) under a multiple-award, indefinite'delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) task order contract. Colliers maintains that these services are outside the scope of the ID/IQ contract.
Colliers protests that the task order is outside the scope of Kunwon's ID/IQ contract. According to the protester, the underlying multiple-award ID/IQ contract called for the management of a program to 'realign and relocate' a substantial amount of the US military force structure in Korea Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 1. Colliers further argues that because the HHAP concept was not mentioned or contemplated when the IDIQ contract was awarded, it could not be considered within the scope of that contract, and conducting a study or an industry forum regarding a complex leasing program for military family housing involving the private sector was unlike the planning and management tasks set forth in the ID/IQ contract.
As a general rule, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires contracting agencies to obtain full and open competition in the procurement of supplies and services. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(a)(1)(A) (2000); Specialty Marine, Inc., B'293871, B-293871.2, June 17, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 130 at 2. Our Office does not review a protest of the issuance or proposed issuance of a delivery or task order except for a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304c. In determining whether a task or delivery order is outside the scope of the underlying contract, and thus falls within CICA's competition requirement, our Office examines whether the order is materially different from the original contract. Evidence of a material difference is found by reviewing the circumstances attending the original procurement; any changes in the type of work, performance period, and costs between the contract as awarded and the order as issued; and whether the original solicitation effectively advised offerors of the potential for the type of orders issued; overall, the inquiry is whether the order is one which potential offerors would have reasonably anticipated. Relm Wireless Corp., B-298715,
Based on the record, we conclude that the task order to evaluate the feasibility of the HHAP was within the scope of the ID/IQ contract as originally awarded. As previously noted, the contract required the efficient realignment and relocation of a substantial amount of the U.S. military force structure through PM techniques, such as financial feasibility studies, construction bidder interest, market analysis to determine key subcontractor's services, cost and value management, and construction cost estimatesIt seems apparent that a feasibility study regarding what approach should be taken regarding military housing at Camp Humphreys clearly relates to the efficient realignment and relocation of the U.S. military to that base with the best achievable quality, which was the primary purpose of the ID/IQ contract. Moreover, the industry forum and feasibility study, targeted to participants who could provide financial and technical feedback on the HHAP concept is the type of task contemplated by the ID/IQ contract. A financial feasibility study requires financial feedback and information, just as market analysis or construction related issues of bidder interest or cost would have to be based on technical insight. Further, the management nature of the contract necessitates a planning process sufficient to determine the scopes of work for separate projects, and to schedule and manage the implementation of those projects while complying with the program's budget and efficiency requirements. While it is true that the contract did not specifically provide for an industry forum concerning the HHAP concept, as indicated above, the scope of work for the ID/IQ contract was broad and specifically provided for unidentified special studies, such as the feasibility study here.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger