Access Research Corporation, B-281807, April 5, 1999

B-281807 Apr 05, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging contracting agency's decision to issue an initial modification to existing contract is untimely where protest was not filed until 3-1/2 years after issuance of the modification. Protester acknowledges that it was aware of the agency's action when the modification was issued. There is no indication that protester ever formally protested the agency's action. 2. Modification is within the scope of existing contract for the digitization of paper-based technical orders. The SOW explains that Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) is responsible for the management and distribution of approximately 44. MERC's contract was subsequently modified several times to incrementally fund the total requirement. View Decision Matter of: Access Research Corporation File: B-281807 Date: April 5, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Access Research Corporation (ARC) protests the issuance by the Department of the Air Force of modification No. 16 to contract No. F09603-93-G-0012-0005, awarded to Mercer Engineering Research Center (MERC). The modification calls for MERC to complete digitization of paper copy technical orders (TO). We deny the protest. On September 30, 1993, the Air Force issued contract No. F09603-93-G-0012-0005 to MERC for certain engineering services. /1/ On May 31, 1995, the Air Force issued modification No. 06 to MERC's contract, to acquire digitization of the agency's entire TO warehouse, estimated to encompass approximately 10 million pages of documents. /2/ The statement of work (SOW) accompanying modification No. 06 requires the contractor to establish a document capture system and indexed image repository for the conversion of TOs stored in the agency's warehouse from paper to digital form. SOW, May 4, 1995, at Para. 1.0. The SOW explains that Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) is responsible for the management and distribution of approximately 44,000 active, non-classified, paper-based Air Force TOs for major weapons systems, comprising approximately 10 million pages. Id. Para. 2.0. According to the agency, modification No. 06 funded the digitization of only 2 million pages, and MERC's contract was subsequently modified several times to incrementally fund the total requirement. For example, modification No. 07, dated September 27, 1995, funded the digitization of an additional 2 million pages for a cumulative funded total of 4 million pages; modification No. 12, dated September 27, 1996, decreased the estimated number of pages to be digitized from 4 million to approximately 3 million pages; and modification No. 14, dated September 30, 1997, funded the digitization of an additional 1 million pages, bringing the cumulative funded total to approximately 4 million pages. The agency explains that the modification which ARC protests, No. 16, dated September 28, 1998, was intended to complete funding for the digitization of the balance of the TOs in the warehouse, estimated at 4.5 million additional pages, bringing the cumulative funded total to 8.5 million pages of paper-based TOs stored in the warehouse--15 percent less than the original estimate of 10 million pages. As such, the Air Force states that modification No. 16 was merely an incremental funding action that was intended to complete the requirement contained in modification No. 06 to digitize the agency's entire TO warehouse, and therefore is within the scope of MERC's contract. ARC challenges the Air Force's actions, initiated with issuance of modification No. 06, to acquire digitization of the paper-based TOs through modifications to MERC's existing contract. ARC argues that the modifications are outside the scope of the contract under which they were issued--delivery order No. 0005 awarded pursuant to MERC's BOA in 1993. Once a contract is awarded, our Office will generally not consider protests against modifications to that contract, because such matters are related to contract administration and are beyond the scope of our bid protest function. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.5(a) (1998); Stoehner Sec. Servs., Inc., B-248077.3, Oct. 27, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 285 at 4. The exception to this general rule is where, as here, it is alleged that a contract modification is beyond the scope of the original contract, since the work covered by the modification would otherwise be subject to the statutory requirements for competition (absent a valid determination that the work is appropriate for procurement on a sole-source basis). Neil R. Gross & Co., Inc., B-237434, Feb. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 212 at 2, aff'd, The Dept. of Labor--Recon., B-237434.2, May 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 491. As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the protest is untimely to the extent it challenges the Air Force's decision, initiated with modification No. 06, to acquire digitization of the TOs through modifications to MERC's existing contract.