General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (W50NH922R0005)

B-421525 May 26, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., (GDIT) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the terms of request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH9-22-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army for information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the solicitation contemplates issuance of task order that is outside the scope of the underlying indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and is ambiguous. We sustain the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. File: B-421525 Date: May 26, 2023 Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., David B. Robbins, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Aime J. Joo, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Major Nhu T. Tran, Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging solicitation terms is sustained where the solicitation, as currently structured, is ambiguous and does not comport with applicable procurement regulations for use of a firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort contract type. DECISION General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., (GDIT) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the terms of request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH9-22-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army for information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the solicitation contemplates issuance of task order that is outside the scope of the underlying indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and is ambiguous. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On December 7, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of the Army’s Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-3 Services (ITES-3S) IDIQ contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RTOP at 1, 33.[1] The solicitation seeks proposals for IT support services “to operate and maintain the Command and Control, Communications, Computers, and Information Management (C4IM) and Infrastructure Operations for Headquarters (HQ) United States (U.S.) Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM).” AR, Tab 9, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The successful offeror will be required to “provide subject matter experts necessary to provide support to maintain the C4IM of INSCOM’s local networks and corollary infrastructure.” Id. The solicitation contemplates issuance of a single firm‑fixed-price, task order with level-of-effort (LOE) terms (i.e., a firm-fixed-price, LOE term task order) with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.[2] RTOP at 6, 33. Prior to the time set for receipt of proposals, GDIT, which is an ITES-3S IDIQ contract holder, filed this protest with our Office challenging the terms of the solicitation.[3] DISCUSSION The protester argues that the firm-fixed-priced, LOE term task order contemplated by the solicitation is outside the scope of the underlying IDIQ contract. The protester also maintains the solicitation is ambiguous in several respects. We have reviewed all the protester’s arguments, and we sustain the protest because the solicitation is ambiguous and does not comply with applicable regulatory requirements for use of a firm-fixed-price, LOE term type of contract. Scope of Task Order As an initial matter, the protester contends that the contemplated task order is beyond the scope of the IDIQ contract. According to GDIT, the ITES-3S IDIQ contract authorizes ordering agencies to issue only three types of orders: firm-fixed-price, time-and-materials, or cost-reimbursable. Protest at 8. The protester asserts that the firm‑fixed‑price, LOE term order contemplated by the solicitation here “is materially distinct from a standard firm-fixed-price contract.” Id. at 11. The protester contends that while a firm-fixed-price, LOE term order represents one type of fixed‑price contract, the different kinds of fixed-price contracts exist on a continuum, with each representing a unique type of contract. Id. at 9, 11. The protester argues that because the underlying ITES-3S IDIQ contract provides that issued “task orders may be firm-fixed-price, time‑and-materials, and/or cost‑reimbursable in nature,” and does not allow for issuance of the distinct firm-fixed‑price, LOE term order, the solicitation is inconsistent with the terms--and therefore exceeds the scope--of the underlying IDIQ contract.[4] Id.