United Information Systems, Inc., B-282895; B-282896, June 22, 1999

United Information Systems, Inc., B-282895; B-282896, June 22, 1999 TITLE: United Information Systems, Inc., B-282895; B-282896, June 22, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282895; B-282896 DATE: June 22, 1999 ********************************************************************** United Information Systems, Inc., B-282895; B-282896, June 22, 1999 Decision Matter of: United Information Systems, Inc. File: B-282895; B-282896 Date: June 22, 1999 Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., and Erin K. Zack, Esq., Gadsby & Hannah, for the protester. Mike Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests alleging that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's proposals submitted in response to solicitations issued pursuant to indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contract are dismissed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. sect. 253j(d) (1994), which 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," where the enumerated exceptions do not apply. DECISION United Information Systems, Inc. (UIS) protests the exclusion of its proposals from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) Nos. N02-CO-94024 and N02-CO-94025, issued by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Department of Health and Human Services, for systems administration and production of databases for the International Cancer Information Center and for programming support for database maintenance and distribution processes. UIS primarily argues that NCI unreasonably evaluated its proposals. We dismiss the protests. According to the protester, the agency awarded UIS a multiple award task order contract (N02-CO-84000) in December 1997, Protest at 3, and issued the RFPs which are the subject of its protest on May 7, 1999. Id. at 2. The agency states that the two RFPs here were issued to the multiple firms holding umbrella contracts such as N02-CO-84000 as competitive task order solicitations. Summary Dismissal Request, June 7, 1999, at 1. As such, the agency argues that we are precluded from considering the protest by 41 U.S.C. sect. 253j(d) (1994), which provides that a "[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." See also Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 16.505(a)(7). The protester cites several decisions of our Office to argue that we should consider the protest because NCI's actions suggest that the agency intentionally chose a task order contract to circumvent the requirement to conduct a fair and reasonable evaluation of proposals and to avoid review by our Office. The decisions UIS cites discuss those limited situations where we will consider protests of agency actions not usually subject to our jurisdiction where the protester alleges that the agency was attempting to circumvent applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Premier Vending, B-256560, July 5, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 8 (allegation that the agency was improperly channeling its requirement through a nonappropriated fund instrumentality); Sprint Communications Co., L.P., B-256586; B-256586.2, May 9, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 300 (use of cooperative agreement instead of contract); Oklahomans for Indian Opportunities, B-224097, Aug. 29, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 252 (award of grant where contract allegedly required). The cases UIS relies on are inapplicable here, however, since 41 U.S.C. sect. 253h(a) specifically authorizes the head of an executive agency to enter into a task or delivery order contract for the procurement of services or property. Thus, contrary to UIS's position, there is no legal basis to object to the agency's decision to enter into a task order contract to procure the required services. Further, we think that the restriction on protests of orders placed under a task order contract as contained in 41 U.S.C. sect. 253j(d) applies here. The restriction on protests regarding task orders was included in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), Pub. L. No. 103-355, sect. 1004, 108 Stat. 3243, 3252-53 (1994), as part of FASA's treatment of task and delivery order contracts. The legislative history concerning the provisions of FASA treating task and delivery order contracts indicates that they were intended to encourage the use of multiple-award task or delivery order contracts, rather than single-award task or delivery order contracts, in order to promote an ongoing competitive environment in which each awardee was fairly considered for each order issued.