Data Transformation Corporation

B-274629 Dec 19, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights In determining whether a task order under a contract was issued properly. The General Accounting Office (GAO) will look to whether there is a material difference between the contract. The General Accounting Office will consider whether the agency itself has historically procured allegedly "beyond-the-scope" task order services under a separate and independent contract. Such that it appears that the agency itself has viewed the task order services as separable and essentially different in nature from the contract under which the task order was issued. Contends that the task order is beyond the scope of CACI's contract and that DOJ should have conducted a competition for the acquisition. JHJMD-92-R-0059 was issued on August 31. View Decision Matter of: Data Transformation Corporation File: B-274629 Date: December 19, 1996 * Redacted Decision In determining whether a task order under a contract was issued properly, the General Accounting Office (GAO) will look to whether there is a material difference between the contract, as modified by the task order, and the original contract. In determining the materiality of a modification, the GAO considers factors such as the extent of any changes in the type of work, performance period and costs between the contract as awarded and as modified, as well as whether the original contract solicitation adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type of task order issued. The General Accounting Office will consider whether the agency itself has historically procured allegedly "beyond-the-scope" task order services under a separate and independent contract, and whether the agency has previously awarded the requirement on a basis of a different statement of work, such that it appears that the agency itself has viewed the task order services as separable and essentially different in nature from the contract under which the task order was issued. Attorneys DECISION Data Transformation Corporation (DTC) protests the Department of Justice's (DOJ) decision to issue a task order to CACI, Inc. under contract No. 3C-G-ENR-0051, for services to operate DOJ's Nationwide Central Intake Facility (NCIF). DTC, which had been operating the NCIF for DOJ since November 1993, contends that the task order is beyond the scope of CACI's contract and that DOJ should have conducted a competition for the acquisition. We sustain the protest. THE DTC CONTRACT Request for proposals (RFP) No. JHJMD-92-R-0059 was issued on August 31, 1992 and awarded to DTC on November 18, 1993. Section C of the RFP, entitled "Nationwide Central Intake Facility Statement of Work," advised offerors of the historical background and objective of the RFP, which follows. The RFP stated that it is the policy of the government to make every effort to collect debts owed to the United States. Such debts arise under a myriad of federal programs, including direct, guaranteed or insured student loans made by the Department of Education, loans for veterans by the Department of Veterans Affairs, loans to farmers, small business loans made by the Small Business Administration, and many other programs. In fact, the RFP stated that "almost every [f]ederal agency has some program for lending money or guaranteeing or insuring loans to citizens for an infinite variety of purposes." The RFP also stated that when these loans or other types of debt go into default, creditor agencies, after their own efforts to collect, refer the debts to DOJ for litigation and judgment "pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 3001 et seq." Before 1986, these debts were referred directly to the United States Attorney's Offices (USAOs) in whose federal judicial districts the debtors resided. The basic problem with this procedure was that all federal debts were coming to DOJ "through 94 separate 'doors'" (the 94 USAOs), making it very difficult for DOJ to keep accurate and reliable data on the number and dollar value of debts. In 1986, the Congress enacted the Federal Debt Recovery Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3718(b) (1994), which authorized DOJ to "run a pilot project of contracting with lawyers and law firms in the private sector to help the [USAOs] handle the litigation to collect delinquent debts." The Office of Debt Collection Management (DCM), the organization within DOJ charged with implementing the pilot project, decided to require that all debts be referred for litigation through a single "door," a Central Intake Facility (CIF), which would then refer the debts to the USAOs and private counsel in the districts. The concept proved so successful that it was expanded into the existing NCIF, which began receiving all civil debts being referred to all 94 USAOs and all debts in bankruptcy where the creditor agencies wanted to file Proofs of Claims.