Solute Consulting v. United States
103 Fed. Cl. 783
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Navy uses SeaPort-e to acquire support services through multiple awards and task orders; contracts include a Scope of Contract detailing applicable work.
- SPAWAR issued task order solicitation N00024-11-R-3332 for PMW 750 with set-aside for small business and cost-plus-fixed-fee structure; seven functional areas and specific phases described in the PWS.
- Offerors submitted cost, technical proposals, and personnel information to cover 102,720 direct labor hours annually; technical factors included Organizational Experience, Management Capability, Key Personnel, and Past Performance; cost was evaluated but less important overall.
- TEB rated Solute (incumbent) and Sentek; Sentek received higher overall ratings; Solute’s protest challenged numerous evaluation ratings and some strengths/weaknesses.
- Cost team determined total evaluated costs/prices; Source Selection Authority awarded the task order to Sentek as best value.
- Solute protest was filed alleging (a) scope-increase due to waiving requirements and (b) unreasonable, unequal evaluation; court later dismisses for lack of jurisdiction because challenge concerns evaluation, not scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review postaward task order protests | Solute argues the task order exceeds contract scope and merits review. | Defendant asserts jurisdiction bars apply unless scope-increase exception is met. | Lacks jurisdiction; protest concerns evaluation, not scope. |
| Whether the task order increases the scope of the underlying SeaPort-e contract | Solute contends waivers and noncompliant proposals expanded scope. | Solute's definition of scope is too broad and not supported by contract or statute. | Scope refers to scope of work under the contract; no material difference found. |
| Whether a task order protest bar applies to evaluation challenges | Solute asserts errors in evaluation justify exception to protest bar. | Evaluation-related challenges do not fall within the scope exception. | Exception does not cover evaluation flaws; protest dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (modification scope analysis; material departure test)
- Phoenix Air Group, Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 90 (2000) (task order vs. contract scope comparison)
- Omega World Travel, Inc. v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 452 (2008) (challenge task orders exceeding contract scope)
- A & D Fire Protection, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 126 (2006) (task order protest bar; evaluation flaws not scoping)
- Global Computer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 350 (2009) (contract modification scope and task orders in line with scope)
- Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States, 50 Fed.Cl. 443 (2001) (modification scope analyzed by work scope alignment)