B-400173, Colliers International, July 3, 2008
![[Select for PDF file]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20080916080833im_/http://gao.gov/graphics/pdf.gif)
Decision
Matter of: Colliers International
Michael P. Foley, Esq., Rendigs,
Fry, Kiely & Dennis, LLP, for the protester.
Brian S. Smith, Esq., and
Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Lois A. Hanshaw and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
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.
DECISION
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.
On
On
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
General Counsel