## Facts

- The Army awarded five ID/IQ contracts for the Department of Defense Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office (CNTPO) to provide counter-narcoterrorism program and operations support worldwide, with focus on Afghanistan and Colombia.
- Under those ID/IQ contracts, the Army issued two task order requests for proposals (TORPs) limited to the five ID/IQ awardees:
  - TORP 150 sought mentoring and training for the Afghan Ministry of the Interior and Afghan National Police (ANP).
  - TORP 166 sought facility maintenance and logistics support for the ANP Development Program.
- DynCorp International LLC, not an ID/IQ awardee, protested, asserting the TORPs were outside the ID/IQ contracts’ scope and therefore could not be lawfully competed only among the ID/IQ holders.
- DynCorp argued the TORPs primarily supported general law enforcement and counter-insurgency functions and were, at most, tangentially related to counter-narcoterrorism.
- The Army argued the TORPs were within scope because narcotics trafficking funded insurgency in Afghanistan and strengthening the Ministry of the Interior and ANP indirectly supported counter-narcoterrorism objectives.

## Issues

1. Whether TORPs 150 and 166 were within the scope reasonably contemplated by the underlying CNTPO ID/IQ contracts.
2. If the TORPs were out of scope, whether limiting competition to the ID/IQ awardees improperly avoided full and open competition requirements.

## Decision

- GAO sustained the protest.
- GAO found TORPs 150 and 166 outside the scope of the underlying ID/IQ contracts.
- GAO concluded the TORPs sought broad mentoring, training, facilities, and logistics support for general law enforcement and counter-insurgency activities, not counter-narcoterrorism support as competed under the ID/IQ contracts.
- Because the requirements were out of scope, the Army could not properly restrict the work to the ID/IQ awardees consistent with competition requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Task and delivery orders must fall within the scope reasonably contemplated by the underlying contract; out-of-scope requirements require a new procurement with full and open competition.
- Scope analysis turns on whether the nature and magnitude of the ordered work would have been anticipated by offerors at the time of the original competition.
- A generalized strategic connection between program goals does not, by itself, bring materially different services within a contract’s scope when the ordered work shifts to broad institutional or general mission support.

## Conclusion

GAO held that the Army’s use of CNTPO counter-narcoterrorism ID/IQ contracts to obtain broad Afghan police mentoring, training, and logistics support exceeded the contracts’ scope, requiring the agency to pursue the requirements through a properly competed procurement rather than limiting competition to the ID/IQ holders.


Matter of DynCorp Int’l LLC, B-402349, 2010 WL 893517 (Comp. Gen. Mar. 15, 2010)