Adams and Associates, Inc.

B-417534 Jun 04, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Adams and Associates, Inc. (Adams), of Reno, Nevada, protests its exclusion from competition under a task order request for quotations (TORFQ) issued under the Department of Labor's (DOL) "Contingency" multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for the interim operation of the agency's Atterbury Job Corps Center (JCC) in Edinburgh, Indiana. The protester argues that the agency has misconstrued the terms of a provision excluding certain incumbent contractors from competing for task orders under the Contingency IDIQ, or, in the alternative, that the relevant contract provision is contrary to law and regulation. We dismiss the protest because it is not within our jurisdiction. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Adams and Associates, Inc. File:  B-417534 Date:  June 4, 2019 Lindsay Simmons, Esq., Hopewell Darnielle, Esq., Jackson Kelly PLLC, for the protester. Jose Otero, Esq., Virginia Ackerman, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST GAO lacks jurisdiction to hear protest of task order solicitation where task order’s value, exclusive of the value of an option to extend services, is below $10 million and solicitation does not provide for the pricing or evaluation of the option to extend services. DECISION Adams and Associates, Inc. (Adams), of Reno, Nevada, protests its exclusion from competition under a task order request for quotations (TORFQ) issued under the Department of Labor’s (DOL) “Contingency” multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for the interim operation of the agency’s Atterbury Job Corps Center (JCC) in Edinburgh, Indiana.  The protester argues that the agency has misconstrued the terms of a provision excluding certain incumbent contractors from competing for task orders under the Contingency IDIQ, or, in the alternative, that the relevant contract provision is contrary to law and regulation. We dismiss the protest because it is not within our jurisdiction. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2017, the agency issued a solicitation for the operation of the Atterbury JCC, and on April 11, 2019, awarded a contract to Management and Training Corporation.  Agency Request for Dismissal at 3-4.  Adams is the incumbent contractor at the Atterbury JCC, and filed a protest of that award with our Office, which is currently docketed as protest No. B‑417120.2.  Id.  To provide for continued operations during the pendency of the protest filed by Adams, the agency sought a six-month task order for services at the Atterbury JCC under the Contingency IDIQ.  Id. The TORFQ contemplates the placement of a single task order for a six-month period of performance.  Agency Request to Dismiss at 4.  The TORFQ provided that price would be evaluated in accordance with a provided pricing schedule, and the pricing schedule directed vendors to price the six-month base period.  TORFQ at 3‑7.  While the TORFQ does not specify any option periods, the Contingency IDIQ contract provides that task orders issued under it will be subject to the contract extension provision at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217-8.  Id. at 5,7; Contingency IDIQ Contract at 41.  This clause provides an option to extend services for up to six months at the rates specified in the contract, subject to certain exceptions.  FAR clause 52.217-8. The Contingency IDIQ contract also contains a clause providing that, where the operation of a JCC is “being changed (e.g. contract terminations or DOL determination not to exercise a contract option period), the incumbent [contractor] is ineligible for award” of a contingency task order for the relevant JCC.  Agency Request for Dismissal at 5; Contingency IDIQ Contract at 50.  The agency concluded that, pursuant to this clause, Adams was ineligible to compete under the TORFQ.  Agency Request for Dismissal at 5.  Adams filed a protest of its exclusion from the competition on May 2, prior to the closing date for receipt of quotations.  Id. As relevant to this decision, the record reflects that the agency prepared an independent government estimate for this procurement, which concluded that the likely value of the task order is approximately [DELETED] million.  Id. at 6.  The record also reflects that the agency received quotations from eight vendors, including the protester, notwithstanding the fact that the agency did not invite Adams to submit a quote.  Id. at 5.  Specifically, the protester quoted a price of approximately [DELETED] million, and six of the seven other quotations the agency received were below $10 million.  Id.