BNUMBER:  B-278407.2 
DATE:  February 13, 1998
TITLE: Sprint Communications Company, B-278407.2, February 13, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Sprint Communications Company

File:     B-278407.2

Date:February 13, 1998

David S. Cohen, Esq., and Alex B. Kondï¿½, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, and 
George J. Affe, Esq., and Anthony L. Cogswell, Esq., Sprint 
Communications Company, for the protester.
Richard P. Rector, Esq., Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Chandra Emery, Esq., 
Piper & Marbury, and Robin L. Redfield, Esq., for MCI 
Telecommunications Corporation, the intervenor.
H. Jack Shearer, Esq., McKenzie Whitaker, Esq., Defense Information 
Systems Agency, for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq. Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

 DIGEST

Modification of contract for bandwidth management and switching 
services for Department of Defense telecommunications network to 
permit the contractor to become the primary supplier of transmission 
services for agency customers using asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) 
service (a high-speed, packet-like switching and multiplexing 
technique which simultaneously transfers voice, data, and video at far 
higher speeds than other existing technology) is beyond the scope of 
the original contract; the transmission component of ATM must be 
purchased in accordance with the statutory requirements for 
competition.

DECISION

Sprint Communications Company protests the decision of the Defense 
Information Systems Agency (DISA) to modify its contract with MCI 
Telecommunications Corporation for bandwidth management and switching 
services for the Defense Information System Network (DISN).  Sprint 
argues that the requirement of the modification that MCI provide 
transmission services exceeds the scope of the original contract.  
Thus, Sprint argues that DISA was required to hold a competition for 
the transmission services.    

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

MCI's contract, No. DCA200-96-D-0096, is one of a series of component 
contracts that make up the DISN, a telecommunications system providing 
end-to-end common user, switched voice and video, and dedicated data 
service in support of Department of Defense (DOD) command, control, 
communication, and intelligence requirements.  The MCI contract, which 
is known as the DISN Switched/Bandwidth Manager Services continental 
United States (CONUS) (DS/BMS-C) contract, was awarded under request 
for proposals (RFP) No. DCA200-95-R-0129.  

Three vendors submitted proposals in response to the DS/BMS-C RFP:  
MCI, AT&T Corporation, and Electronic Data Systems, Inc., which 
proposed Sprint as a subcontractor.  The DS/BMS-C contract was awarded 
to MCI on August 28, 1996, at an evaluated life-cycle cost of 
approximately $84.9 million.  Agency Report (Report) at 14.  The 
contract includes a not-to-exceed cost ceiling of $400 million.

The DS/BMS-C contract includes a statement of work (SOW) which 
describes the services to be provided under the contract as "switched 
and bandwidth management services in support of DISN CONUS."  SOW  sec.  
1.2.  Thus, the DS/BMS-C contract provides the capability to switch 
network traffic[1] at service delivery points and provides bandwidth 
managers at government specified service delivery points.[2]  In 
addition, the contractor provides network management services and 
shares network coordinating functions with other network contractors.  
SOW  sec.  3.4.

Concerning the issue raised by this protest--whether the DS/BMS-C 
contractor will provide transmission services--section 1.2 of the SOW 
states:

        This contract will not require the contractor to provide 
        either access to the network or backbone transmission 
        services.  All access and backbone transmission services, 
        including those that are needed to connect with existing 
        services during transition of full services between end-user 
        [service delivery points], will be provided by the Government 
        under separate contract unless otherwise stipulated.

Also relevant to this protest, SOW section 1.4, "ROLE OF OTHER 
CONTRACTORS," describes the various contracts that make up the DISN.  
Generally, that section explains that the DS/BMS-C contract provides 
switching and bandwidth management services and network management 
functions for the DISN.  Section 1.4 of the DS/BMS-C SOW also 
describes the DTS-C contract, which was awarded to AT&T on January 28, 
1997.  According to section 1.4, the DTS-C contract provides access 
transmission services defined as "access between DOD facilities and 
the DISN CONUS network" and backbone transmission services defined as 
"the wideband network level transport that will connect the [bandwidth 
managers] provided under this [the DS/BMS-C contract] contract."[3] 

The Modification

In May 1997, DOD's TRICARE[4] Information Management Program requested 
that DISA provide a high bandwidth, reliable telecommunications 
network for hospitals and medical facilities within the military's 
health care system.  Report at 16.  The network is to integrate 
information such as patient records, laboratory analysis results, 
resource scheduling, billing, and medical consultations.  In addition, 
the network is to allow health care providers in critically short 
specialty areas to serve a wider area of coverage through video 
teleconferencing and telemedicine.  DISA agreed to provide the 
required telecommunications network and decided that an advanced 
technology known as asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) service would 
best support the type of high bandwidth service requested by 
TRICARE.[5]  DISA also determined that the TRICARE requirement should 
be satisfied on the DISN rather than a separate stand-alone network.  
Id. 

As explained by the contracting officer, DISA expected that the DTS-C 
contractor, AT&T, would be the primary source of transmission for the 
DISN, including transmission for ATM service.  Hearing transcript 
(Tr.) at 82.  However, AT&T was unable to install the SONET[6] 
transmission backbone required for ATM service by the time required by 
the contract and proposed a schedule for installation no later than 
June 1998.  Tr. at 84.  As a result, DISA has had to look elsewhere 
for transmission for ATM until AT&T can provide it.

In the summer of 1997, DISA considered several possible approaches to 
satisfying the TRICARE ATM requirement.  Among the approaches 
considered were: 
(1) modification of the DS/BMS-C contract to provide full ATM service, 
including transmission; (2) providing ATM service indirectly through 
Sprint via the Federal Systems Integration and Management Center 
contract, a General Services Administration multiple-award schedule 
contract;[7] (3) initiation of a new competitive procurement for ATM 
service; and (4) delay providing ATM technology until the DISN reaches 
full operational capability, probably in the summer of 1998.  Report 
at 17.

In September 1997, while DISA was considering its options, Sprint 
first approached the agency and argued that use of the DS/BMS-C 
contract to provide full ATM service would exceed the scope of that 
contract.  Report at 19.  DISA and Sprint discussed whether Sprint 
could provide ATM services, including switching and transmission under 
either one of two existing contracts.  DISA rejected those 
possibilities.[8]  Report at 19.

Subsequently, DISA decided to modify the DS/BMS-C contract to allow 
MCI to provide ATM services, including bandwidth management and 
switching and transmission under that contract.  On November 4, the 
modification, No. P00012, was signed.  The modification states that it 
was issued to add 54 TRICARE sites under subclin 0014AA of the 
contract for ATM service.  The modification lists 54 TRICARE sites and 
adds to the contract a Statement of Work Addendum (SOW Addendum) and a 
Functional Requirements Specification Appendix, both dated October 15, 
1997.  After the modification, some TRICARE sites were added and some 
were deleted; DISA now plans to provide ATM services to 70 TRICARE 
sites under the modification.  Tr. at 29.

The SOW Addendum, at section 1.2 "CONTRACT SCOPE," states that the 
"Addendum provides for DISN-CONUS ATM services under the DS/BMS-C 
contract."  It also states:

     Initially, the government's ATM service will be provisioned using 
     commercial ATM services under the DS/BMS-C and other ATM contract 
     sources. . . . The interim ATM service will transition to an 
     objective DISN CONUS ATM service after the DISN CONUS achieves 
     Full Operational Capability. . . .  After DISN CONUS [Full 
     Operational Capability], the government's ATM service will be 
     provisioned using both the DS/BMS-C and DTS-C contracts.  

The SOW Addendum also states that transition from the interim ATM 
service to the objective ATM service--with transmission to be provided 
by the DTS-C contract--will start 180 days after Full Operational 
Capability and the transition will be completed 180 days after it has 
begun.  SOW Addendum at  sec.  1.2.

PROTEST ALLEGATIONS

Sprint acknowledges that the bandwidth management and switching 
component of the ATM modification is within the scope of the DS/BMS-C 
contract.  Sprint Supplemental Comments, January 8, 1998, at 7.  
Sprint, nonetheless, argues that the transmission component of the 
modification is materially different from the services solicited by 
the RFP and is outside the scope of the DS/BMS-C contract. Protest at 
4.  According to Sprint, the original solicitation could not be 
construed as advising potential offerors of the possibility that ATM 
transmission services could be acquired under the contract.

Sprint states that, in reliance on the plain language of the DS/BMS-C 
RFP, it elected not to submit a proposal in response to that RFP, 
although it did submit a proposal in response to the transmission RFP.  
Sprint also argues that it was prejudiced by the modification because 
it is fully able to provide public or private transmission services to 
meet DISA's ATM requirements. 

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) requires "full and open 
competition" in government procurements as obtained through the use of 
competitive procedures.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(a)(1)(A) (1994).  Once a 
contract is awarded, however, our Office will generally not review 
modifications to that contract, because such matters are related to 
contract administration and are beyond the scope of our bid protest 
function.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a)(1997); Stoehner Sec. Servs., Inc., 
B-248077.3, Oct. 27, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  285 at 4.  The exception to this 
rule is where it is alleged that a contract modification is beyond the 
scope of the original contract, since the work covered by the 
modification would otherwise be subject to the statutory requirements 
for competition (absent a valid determination that the work is 
appropriate for procurement on a sole-source basis).  MCI Telecomms. 
Corp., B-276659.2, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  90 at 7.

In determining whether a modification triggers the competition 
requirements in CICA, we look to whether there is a material 
difference between the modified contract and the contract that was 
originally awarded.  Id.; see AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, 
Inc., 1 F.3d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Evidence of a material 
difference between the modification and the original contract is found 
by examining any changes in the type of work, performance period, and 
costs between the contract as awarded and as modified.  MCI Telecomms. 
Corp., supra, at 7-8.  We also consider whether the solicitation for 
the original contract adequately advised offerors of the potential for 
the type of change found in the modification, CAD Language Sys., Inc., 
B-233709, Apr. 3, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  342 at 4, or whether the 
modification is of a nature which potential offerors would reasonably 
have anticipated at the time of the original award.  American Air 
Filter Co.--DLA Request for Recon., 57 Comp. Gen. 567, 573 (1978), 
78-1 CPD  para.  443 at 9-10.

The Scope of the DS/BMS-C Contract

As an initial matter, there is no question that the DS/BMS-C contract 
contemplated the possibility of some ATM services being ordered under 
the contract.  The pricing tables of the contract include line item 
0014, "Technical Enhancements" and subline item 0014AA "Asynchronous 
Transfer Mode" each with the reference that the price was "To Be 
Negotiated."  In another reference to ATM, the SOW, section 1.2, 
SCOPE, states in part:

     Service enhancements, such as ATM, may be required under the 
     provisions of technology enhancements.  The specific 
     terminations, throughput capability, and network management suite 
     for system operation have not been finalized.  It is envisioned 
     that dedicated point-to-point service will migrate to this 
     capability as soon as the performance for the ATM is proven and 
     the costs for ATM service becomes competitive.

These and other provisions in the DS/BMS-C contract indicate that ATM 
service could be added to the contract; these provisions, however, do 
not address the question presented by Sprint's protest:  whether the 
transmission component of the ATM modification is within the scope of 
the contract.

The contract also includes, at section H12, an expansive technical 
enhancements clause which provided that after award:

        the Government may solicit, and the contractor is encouraged 
        to propose independently, improvements to the services, 
        features, or other requirements of the contract.  These 
        improvements may be proposed to save money, to improve 
        performance, or for any other purpose which presents a service 
        advantage to the Government.  

Despite the broad nature of the enhancements clause, however, and 
despite the references to the DS/BMS-C contractor providing ATM 
service, we conclude that the transmission component of ATM added to 
the contract by the modification resulted in a material change in the 
contract.  Our reasons for this conclusion are set forth below.

Focusing first on the type of work at issue, the DS/BMS-C SOW, in 
section 1.4, "ROLE OF OTHER CONTRACTORS," states that "DISN CONUS end 
user services will be provided through services and facilities that 
are obtained from a number of separate contracts referred to 
throughout this contract as DISN Service Contracts."  According to 
section 1.4(1), the DS/BMS-C contractor is to "provide the capability 
to switch DISN CONUS traffic and . . .  provide dedicated [bandwidth 
managers] at Government-specified locations.  In addition, the DS/BMSC 
Contractor shall perform the active Network Management functions for 
DISN and share network coordinating information with the other DISN 
service contracts."

According to section 1.4(2) of the DS/BMS-C SOW, the DTS-C (AT&T) 
contract, is to provide access transmission services, described as 
"access between DOD facilities and the DISN CONUS network.  Each DOD 
facility will be connected to a [bandwidth manager] provided under the 
DS/BMSC contract."  Section 1.4(2) also states that the DTS-C contract 
is to provide backbone transmission services, which are described as 
"the wideband network level transport that will connect the [bandwidth 
managers] provided under this contract."  

Thus, as reflected in SOW section 1.4 of the DS/BMS-C contract, the 
DISN generally was based upon a division of responsibilities, with the 
DS/BMS-C contract providing bandwidth management, switching services, 
and network management functions, and the DTS-C contract providing 
transmission.  Section 1.2 of the DS/BMS-C SOW specifically addresses 
the provision of transmission under that contract.  That provision 
states:

        This contract will not require the contractor to provide 
        either access to the network or backbone transmission 
        services.  All access and backbone transmission services, 
        including those that are needed to connect with existing 
        services during transition of full services between end-user 
        [service delivery points], will be provided by the Government 
        under separate contract unless otherwise stipulated.

DISA maintains that this provision permits the delivery of 
transmission for ATM service under the DS/BMS-C contract.  According 
to the agency, "although the RFP advised offerors that the DS/BMS-C 
contractor would not be 'required' to provide transmission, it did not 
prevent the contractor from agreeing to provide such services."  
Report at 11.  In addition, referring to the phrase "unless otherwise 
stipulated" in the above-quoted provision, DISA argues that it 
"explicitly reserved the right to stipulate that transmission would be 
provided under the DS/BMS-C instead of a separate contract."  Report 
at 11-12.  

The linchpin of DISA's position is the premise that the "otherwise 
stipulated" clause permits DISA to modify the contract to add 
transmission requirements beyond those in the contract when it was 
awarded as long as DISA and MCI agree to do so.  We reject this 
premise.  The "unless otherwise stipulated" paragraph must be read in 
the context of other provisions of the contract, including the SOW 
language that describes the duties of the DS/BMS-C contract and the 
DTS-C contract, and the transmission requirements that were in the 
contract when it was awarded.  The only reasonable reading of the 
"unless otherwise stipulated" paragraph in the context of the contract 
as a whole is that access and backbone transmission services will not 
be provided by the DS/BMS-C contractor except for purposes which the 
contract as awarded stipulated.  Section 1.4 of the SOW, as quoted 
above, indicates that DISA generally contemplated a separation of 
transmission and bandwidth management duties between the two 
contracts.  Any reading of the "unless otherwise stipulated" paragraph 
that contradicts that fundamental separation must be based on specific 
language in the contract when it was awarded.  We are aware of no such 
language.

As DISA notes, the division of responsibilities between the DS/BMS-C 
contract and the DTS-C contract was not absolute; the DS/BMS-C 
contract included some transmission requirements when it was awarded.  
For example, the DS/BMS-C SOW indicates that MCI provides transmission 
of network management data and service information, SOW  sec.  3.4,  sec.  
3.4.2; transmission for certain calls which overflow onto MCI's public 
switched telephone network because they cannot be completed over the 
DISN, Functional Requirements Specification  sec.  1.2.2(a); and 
transmission for calling cards.  SOW  sec.  3.1.7, Functional Requirements 
Specification  sec.  1.2.2(b).  Nonetheless, the only reasonable reading of 
the contract is that those transmission requirements are the 
"otherwise stipulated" transmission services referred to in the 
paragraph of the SOW quoted above.  Since the SOW specifically states 
that transmission would be provided under other contracts and that 
this contract will not require transmission "unless otherwise 
stipulated," the only transmission requirements that are within the 
scope of the DS/BMS-C contract are the transmission requirements 
called for by the contract as awarded.  

Turning to the modification, the SOW Addendum of the modification 
states at section 1.2 that, prior to full operational capability of 
the DISN, "the government's ATM service will be provisioned using 
commercial ATM services under the DS/BMS-C and other ATM contract 
sources."  The Functional Requirements Specification Appendix 
describes the performance requirements for the DISN-ATM service as 
"end-to-end," which is defined as "customer terminal to customer 
terminal . . . includ[ing] the effects of all the intermediate systems 
and subsystems such as the customer network, the access network, ATM 
switch service and the backbone network."  Functional Requirements 
Specification Appendix, at  sec.  3.1.  Moreover, DISA and MCI acknowledge 
that, as a result of the modification, in addition to its bandwidth 
management duties, MCI will be the primary provider of access and 
backbone transmission for ATM customers under the DISN until Full 
Operational Capability.

The modification represents a material departure from the contract as 
competed and awarded.  Under the modification, MCI as the DS/BMS-C 
contractor is to be the primary provider of transmission for ATM users 
under the DISN until the DISN reaches Full Operational Capability.  
Although transmission was required under the DS/BMS-C contract as 
awarded, as explained above, prior to the modification, MCI's 
transmission responsibilities were limited to those situations 
stipulated in the contract--which did not stipulate that the DS/BMS-C 
contractor was to be the primary provider of transmission for any DISN 
users.  

Moreover, in addition to becoming the primary provider of transmission 
for ATM service under the modification (until Full Operational 
Capability), MCI also will provide to ATM users bandwidth management 
and switching services as well as network management services, in 
addition to those types of transmission that were stipulated in the 
contract as awarded.  Having one firm provide such a largely complete 
network solution for particular DISN customers was not contemplated by 
the DISN.  On the contrary, as explained above, section 1.4 of the SOW 
indicates that DISA generally contemplated a separation of 
transmission and bandwidth management duties between the two 
contracts.  For this reason also, the type of work to be performed 
under the modification is materially different from the work performed 
under the original contract.

DISA has argued, however, that Sprint must have known that some 
transmission responsibilities would be included under the DS/BMS-C 
contract.  Report at 13-14; Supplemental Agency Report at 4-5, n.4.  
In this connection, DISA notes that the Electronic Data Systems 
proposal, which included Sprint as a subcontractor, discussed Sprint's 
transmission capabilities.  

Here again, the issue is not whether Sprint understood that the 
delivery of transmission would be required under the DS/BMS-C 
contract; the contract stipulated a number of specific situations in 
which the DS/BMS-C contractor would provide transmission.  The issue 
rather is transmission for ATM, and DISA does not suggest that 
anything in the Electronic Data Systems proposal demonstrates that 
Sprint knew that the DS/BMS-C contractor would be the primary provider 
of transmission for ATM for any DISN customers.[9]  In addition, we 
consider it significant that DISA solicited bandwidth management and 
switching services in one RFP and transmission in another; it appears 
that DISA itself views the services as separable.   The separate 
solicitations for these services further supports our view that a 
modification to make the DS/BMS-C contractor the primary provider of 
transmission for ATM service (until Full Operational Capability of the 
DISN) was beyond the contemplation of offerors when the contract was 
awarded.

The potential cost of the transmission component of the modification 
also supports what is clear from the DS/BMS-C contract itself--that 
ATM transmission is beyond the scope of the contract.  Based on a 
stipulation by the parties, Tr. at 291-292, 294-297, the cost of the 
transmission component appears to be between [deleted] for the 70 
TRICARE sites currently covered by the modification.  MCI and DISA 
argue that this cost range does not represent a significant increase 
in the cost of the contract, which has a $400 million not-to-exceed 
ceiling.  For several reasons, however, the actual cost associated 
with the modification may be considerably greater than [deleted].  For 
example, the modification includes no firm date for Full Operational 
Capability and it is possible that MCI will be the primary provider of 
ATM transmission longer than expected.  The contracting officer 
insists that he will monitor the situation to ensure that there is no 
extension of the scheduled June 30, 1998, Full Operational Capability 
date (after which transmission for ATM is to be provided under the 
DTS-C contract).  Tr. at 43-44.  However, the contracting officer 
acknowledges that the original date for Full Operational Capability 
was June 1, 1997, so the date by which the DTS-C contract will provide 
ATM transmission has already been delayed more than a year.  Tr. at 
43.  A further delay would obviously increase the cost associated with 
the modification.

In addition, the scope of the modification is broad.  Although the 
modification, when issued, specifically covered only 54 TRICARE sites, 
the modification states that "[o]ther/future customers for ATM 
services within the DISN CONUS service area may be added and/or 
deleted to this contract service . . . ."  Thus, although the 
contracting officer has explained that he intends to limit the number 
of sites for which ATM is provided under the modification, Tr. at 
27-29, the modification itself places no limit on the number of 
TRICARE sites for which ATM transmission can be provided.  In fact, 
the modification would permit the expansion of ATM service to any site 
within the DISN--not just TRICARE sites.  Under the circumstances, and 
because there is no firm date for conversion to ATM transmission from 
the DTS-C contract, we conclude that the modification could have a 
significant impact on the cost of the DS/BMS-C contract.  MCI 
Telecomms. Corp., supra, at 10.

RECOMMENDATION

We conclude that the modification to the DS/BMS-C contract adding 
transmission services for ATM is beyond the scope of the original 
contract, and that DISA was required to procure these services in 
accordance with the competition requirements of CICA, 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2304(a)(1)(A).  Accordingly, we recommend that DISA terminate the 
transmission services added to the DS/BMS-C contract pursuant to 
modification number P00012, and either hold a competition for these 
services or prepare the appropriate justification required by CICA for 
a sole-source procurement.[10]  

We also recommend that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable 
costs of filing and pursuing its protest including attorneys' fees.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)(1).  In accordance with 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1), 
Sprint's certified claim for such costs, detailing the time expended 
and the costs incurred, must be submitted directly to the agency 
within 60 days after receipt of this decision.  

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1."Traffic" is the flow of information in a telecommunications 
network, and a telecommunications "switch" is essentially a computer 
system that routes or directs traffic to the desired location.

2. Bandwidth managers essentially link transmission facilities (or 
transmission lines) within a telecommunications network.

3. In a previous decision, AT&T Corp., B-270841 et al., May 1, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  237, we denied a protest by AT&T against DISA's refusal to 
allow offerors to submit, and have evaluated, single proposals as an 
alternative to individual proposals under three DISN RFPs, the 
DS/BMS-C RFP, the DTS-C RFP and a third RFP, for video services. 

4. TRICARE is a DOD managed health care program.

5. ATM is a high-speed, packet-like switching and multiplexing 
technique which simultaneously transfers voice, data, and video over 
the same circuits at far higher speeds than other existing technology.  
Report at 3.

6. SONET stands for synchronous optical network and refers to a fiber 
optic transmission system for high-speed digital traffic.

7. Sprint provides a transmission backbone as a subcontractor for 
small disadvantaged business firms on some Federal Systems Integration 
and Management Center contracts.  DISA reports that it has used this 
program to obtain ATM service for specific functions.  Report at 17 
n.9.

8. Sprint first protested the proposed modification of the DS/BMS-C 
contract to this Office on October 17, 1997.  That protest was 
dismissed as premature on October 24 since DISA had not yet decided to 
modify the contract.

9. For the record, we note that an MCI official testified and showed 
references in the firm's proposal that appear to indicate MCI 
anticipated ATM transmission could be ordered under the contract.  Tr. 
at 250-251, 256-257.  We also note, however, that MCI has acknowledged 
that [deleted].  MCI Post Hearing Comments, January 29, 1998, at 19.

10. During the course of this protest, DISA determined that it was in 
the best interest of the government to continue performance 
notwithstanding the protest and executed a "best interest" override of 
the statutory stay of MCI's performance of this modification to the 
contract.  See 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3553(d)(3)(C)(i)(I) (1994).  In such cases, 
CICA requires our Office to make our recommendation "without regard to 
any cost or disruption from terminating, recompeting, or reawarding 
the contract."  31 U.S.C.  sec.  3554(b)(2).