The Intrados Group, B-280130, June 22, 1998

B-280130 Jun 22, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which provides that a protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except on the ground that the order increases the scope. Or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued. Is not implementing a downselect by issuance of that task order. These services were to be provided on a time-and-materials. Multiple awards were contemplated under each functional activity and each award was to be for a minimum of $10. Intrados and eight other firms were selected for contract award under Functional Activity D. Including two task orders issued subsequent to the task order which is the subject of this protest. Intrados argues that the agency's competition for this task order was flawed because the agency did not follow the stated evaluation criteria and scoring scheme and that its technical proposal was misevaluated. View Decision Matter of: The Intrados Group File: B-280130 Date: June 22, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Intrados Group protests the United States Agency for International Development's (AID) issuance of a task order to Financial Markets International under indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery, multiple award contracts awarded under request for proposals (RFP) No. OP/CC/N-94-2 for technical assistance services to support the privatization and economic restructuring program for Europe and the New Independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union. We dismiss the protest. The RFP described privatization services to be provided over a 5-year period for the following five functional activities: (a) transactions; (b) financial sector restructuring and privatization; (c) privatization advisory and training services and support; (d) capital and financial markets to support privatization; and (e) public information. These services were to be provided on a time-and-materials, level-of-effort task order basis. Offerors could submit proposals for one or more of the functional activities, and proposals for each activity would be separately evaluated. Multiple awards were contemplated under each functional activity and each award was to be for a minimum of $10,000. Thirty-six firms, including Intrados, submitted proposals for the capital and financial markets functional activity, known as Functional Activity D. Intrados and eight other firms were selected for contract award under Functional Activity D. The contracts awarded to these firms provided for the issuance of task orders for technical assistance services in support of capital and financial markets in connection with AID's privatization related work throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the NIS. Since 1995, Intrados has been invited to compete for 22 task orders under Functional Activity D, including two task orders issued subsequent to the task order which is the subject of this protest. To date, Intrados has been issued six task orders under Functional Activity D, in the aggregate amount of $18,232,543, pursuant to which Intrados has provided technical services in connection with AID programs in Russia, Romania, Kazakstan, and Moldova. Intrados argues that the agency's competition for this task order was flawed because the agency did not follow the stated evaluation criteria and scoring scheme and that its technical proposal was misevaluated. Intrados recognizes that 41 U.S.C. Sec. 253j(d) (1994) provides that "[a] protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery 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." However, Intrados argues that our Office has jurisdiction to consider this protest consistent with our decision in Electro-Voice, Inc., B-278319, B-278319.2, Jan. 15, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 23 at 5. In that decision, we concluded that the restriction on protests of orders placed under task or delivery order contracts does not apply to protests of downselections implemented by the placement of a task or delivery order under a multiple award task or delivery order contract where the task order results in the elimination of one of the contractors from consideration for future orders. Intrados argues that the task order protested here represents a consolidation into "one last task order" of the AID capital market work in Romania that it and others performed under previously awarded task orders.