[Protest of Air Force Decision To Acquire Aircraft Maintenance Training Equipment Under Existing Contract]

A firm protested the Air Force's decision to acquire aircraft maintenance training equipment under an existing contract with another firm, contending that: (1) the Air Force should conduct a competitive procurement for the equipment rather than acquire it under the contract and allow the contractor to select a subcontractor to produce the equipment; and (2) the acquisition, under an engineering change proposal, constitutes a modification beyond the original scope of the contract and would result in an improper sole-source award. GAO has held that: (1) it will not consider protests against an agency's decision to modify a contract since modifications involve contract administration and are the contracting agency's responsibility; (2) a modification is considered beyond the scope of the contract where it is materially different from the contract for which the competition was held; and (3) a decision to acquire equipment through an existing contract is a matter of contract administration which it will not review where the modification is within the scope of the original contract. GAO found that: (1) the original contract contemplated the acquisition and allowed the contractor to select a subcontractor to produce the equipment; and (2) since the planned acquisition was within the scope of the original contract, it was not a separate procurement subject to the statutory competition requirements. Accordingly, the protest was denied.