B-297121: Nov 15, 2005
- Full Report:
Cartographics, LLC protests the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service's issuance of a task order to Photo Science, Inc. under indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract No. 5384N8-5-001, for digital conversion of maps of the Targhee National Forest. Cartographics contends that the agency improperly selected Photo Science despite Cartographics' lower price.
We dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction.
B-297121, Cartographics, LLC, November 15, 2005
Protest that agency should have issued task order for digital conversion of maps to protester under its multiple-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for cartographic services, rather than to awardee under its architect/ engineering services ID/IQ contract, is dismissed; GAO lacks jurisdiction to consider issuance of task order against ID/IQ contract.
Cartographics, LLC protests the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service's issuance of a task order to Photo Science, Inc. under indefinite-delivery/ indefinite'quantity (ID/IQ) contract No. 53'84N8-5-001, for digital conversion of maps of the
Our Office generally does not have jurisdiction to entertain a protest challenging the issuance of a task order. In this regard, 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304c(d) (2000) 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. The protester does not allege in its protest that the task order at issue increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which it was issued; accordingly, the protest does not fit within the exception provided in the statute, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the matter. See N&N Travel & Tours, Inc. et al., B'285164.2, B-285164.3,
We are aware that the circumstances here are somewhat different from those in prior cases where we found no jurisdiction; in those cases, the protester typically was challenging issuance of a task or delivery order to another multiple award contract holder under the same ID/IQ contract, whereas here, two different ID/IQ contracts are involved and Cartographics is challenging issuance of the task order under Photo Science's contract rather than under its own. However, this distinction does not change our decision. It remains that the focus of Cartographics' protest is a challenge to the agency's decision to issue a task order under an ID/IQ contract, with the dispute centering on which firm should receive the task order. Section 2304c(d) contains no exception to the general limitation on our jurisdiction based on the number of ID/IQ contracts involved in a challenge.
Cartographics also asserts that the award was improper because, according to the terms of its contract, all cartographic requirements were to be purchased under the cartographic services ID/IQ contract. However, the question of whether the terms of Cartographics' contract required the agency to purchase the services here under that contract is a matter of contract administration, and therefore is not for our consideration. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a) (2005); Hawker Eternacell, Inc., B-283586,
The protest is dismissed.
Anthony H. Gamboa
 The Forest Service interprets our decision in AudioCARE Sys., B'283985,