In Western Pilot Service, et al., B-415732 et al., Mar. 6, 2018, GAO sustained a pre-award protest brought by several offerors that arguing that the RFP for a task order sought services outside the scope of the relevant IDIQ contract.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a task order RFP for exclusive-use single engine air tanker (SEAT) flight services for all needs during the 2017 wildfire season under the on-call IDIQ contracts. An exclusive-use RFP for these services required the contractor’s aircraft and services to be reserved for exclusive use during specific time periods in specific locations. On the other hand, the original on-call contracts gave contractors the option to accept or decline Agency’s request for contractor’s aircraft and services. The on-call procurement was considered for “surge capability” during the wildfire season.
Several offerors protested the task order RFP for exclusive-use services, stating the requested services are outside the scope of the on-call IDIQ contracts because the services are materially different. GAO usually does not entertain protests of task orders valued under $10 million; however, a challenge to the scope of a task order remains within GAO’s jurisdiction regardless of value.
GAO looked at whether the task order is materially different from the contract, which may be 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.”
GAO agreed that the task order RFP was materially different from the on-call contracts. Protesters could not have anticipated a task order competition for extended, guaranteed periods of performance when they submitted proposals for the on-call IDIQ contract, and they were not on notice that their on-call pricing would be treated as a ceiling price for a later task order for exclusive-use work.
Bottom line: Task order requirements still need to be within the scope of work of the original IDIQ contract.