The GAO’s jurisdiction to hear most protests in connection with task and delivery order awards under civilian multiple award IDIQs has expired.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction to hear protests in connection with civilian task and delivery order awards valued over $10 million because the underlying statutory authority expired on September 30, 2016.
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 established a bar on bid protests concerning military and civilian agency task and delivery orders under multiple-award IDIQs. FASA, as it is known, allowed exceptions only where the protester alleged that an order improperly increased the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying IDIQ.
The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act adopted another exception, which allowed the GAO to consider protests in connection with orders valued in excess of $10 million. The 2008 authority was codified in two separate statutes–Title 10 of the U.S. Code for military agencies, and Title 41 of the U.S. Code for civilian agencies.
In 2011, the provision adopted by the 2008 NDAA expired. However, because of the way that the sunset provision was drafted, the GAO held (and correctly so, based on the statutory language), that it had authority to consider all task order protests, regardless of the value of the order.
In the 2012 NDAA, Congress reinstated the GAO’s authority to hear bid protests over $10 million, and included a new sunset deadline–September 30, 2016. This time, however, Congress changed the statutory language to ensure that if September 30 passed without reauthorization, the GAO would lose its authority to hear protests of orders valued over $10 million, rather than gaining authority to hear all task and delivery order protests.
That takes us to the GAO’s recent decision in Ryan Consulting Group, Inc., B-414014 (Nov. 7, 2016). In that case, HUD awarded a task order valued over $10 million to 22nd Century Team, LLC, an IDIQ contract holder. Ryan Consulting Group, Inc., another IDIQ holder, filed a GAO protest on October 14, 2016 challenging the award.
The GAO began its decision by walking through the statutory history, starting with FASA and ending with the expiration of the 2012 NDAA protest authority. GAO wrote that “our jurisdiction to resolve a protest in connection with a civilian task order, such as the one at issue, expired on September 30, 2016.”
In this case, GAO wrote, “it is clear that Ryan filed its protest after our specific authority to resolve protests in connection with civilian task and delivery orders in excess of $10 million had expired.” While GAO retains the authority to consider a protest alleging that an order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying IDIQ contract, Ryan made no such allegations. And although Ryan asked that the GAO “consider grandfathering” its protests, GAO wrote that “we have no authority to do so.”
GAO dismissed Ryan’s protest.
As my colleague Matt Schoonover recently discussed in depth, the expiration of GAO’s task order authority applies only to civilian agencies like HUD, and not to military agencies. The GAO retains jurisdiction to consider protests of military task and delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million.
Matt also discussed a Congressional disagreement over whether, and to what extent, to reinstate GAO’s task and delivery order bid protest authority. That issue will likely be resolved in the 2016 NDAA, which should be signed into law in the next couple months. We’ll keep you posted.