BNUMBER:  B-279083; B-279219 
DATE:  April 30, 1998
TITLE: Ervin and Associates, Inc., B-279083; B-279219, April 30,
1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Ervin and Associates, Inc.

File:     B-279083; B-279219

Date:April 30, 1998

John J. Ervin for the protester.
Michael J. Farley, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protests that task orders improperly exceed the scope of the 
contracts originally awarded are denied; since relevant language in 
the solicitation's statement of work sets forth the anticipated 
services in broad, general, and flexible terms, potential offerors 
would reasonably have anticipated being asked to perform nearly any 
type of management support services, including those set forth in 
these task orders.

2.  General Accounting Office declines to invoke the significant issue 
exception to its timeliness rules where there has recently been a 
change to the legal framework applicable to the issue presented--the 
alleged overbreadth of the statement of work in a solicitation for an 
indefinite-quantity task order contract; as a result, resolution of 
the issue would have limited application to future procurements and 
thus is not of widespread interest to the procurement community. 

DECISION

Ervin and Associates, Inc. protests the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's (HUD) decision to compete two task orders among 
its seven management studies contractors, all of whose contracts were 
awarded under request for proposals (RFP) No. DU100C000018431.  Ervin 
argues that both task orders--one requesting operations analysis of 
HUD's Office of Housing and one requesting management studies and 
budget formulation for HUD's portfolio reengineering program--are 
beyond the scope of the management studies contracts.

We deny the protests.

BACKGROUND

Management Studies Contracts

The solicitation, issued July 12, 1995, anticipated the award of 
multiple indefinite-quantity contracts for management studies and 
analytical services.  Each contractor was to receive orders worth a 
minimum of $100,000 and a maximum of $25 million over the 48-month 
life of the contract.  RFP at B-1, F-1.  Specific services were to be 
requested and defined through the issuance of task orders; the 
government reserved the right to compete each task order among the 
awardee(s).  Id. at B-2.  

The objectives section of the statement of work (SOW) advised offerors 
that HUD sought to identify contractors to "conceptualize, organize, 
conduct sophisticated research studies and analyses, and to provide 
professional assistance in the areas under review."  RFP  sec.  C.II.  
Contractors were to perform tasks while providing analytical support 
to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and "all other organizational 
components of HUD," which will result in "information, advice, or 
recommendations relating to efficient and effective management and 
delivery of HUD programs and services."  Id.  

The SOW set forth several objectives for which it required the 
contractors' assistance, such as "initiate study efforts shortly after 
they are defined"; "quickly and effectively respond to requests for 
studies, special analyses and reviews covering a wide variety of 
topics"; "carry out necessary evaluations and analyses of the 
Department's internal controls, financial management systems and 
analysis, computer security and other quality assurance activities"; 
"accommodate a broad range of service requests utilizing an 
established pool of contractor resources"; and "develop measures which 
can be used to assess the performance of a given function or to 
compare the performance of a given function by one organization to the 
performance of that function by another organization."  Contractors 
also were to help HUD to provide "training, technical assistance or 
other support services to assist managers in solving the root cause of 
problems which impede effective and efficient program operations and 
in implementing plans for increasing the effectiveness of their 
organizations."  Id.

The scope of work section of the SOW advised offerors that the 
services under the management studies contracts might cover "any of 
the functions for which the Department is responsible . . . ."  RFP  sec.  
C.III.A.  Task orders might take "many forms," but the majority of 
tasks were to involve "evaluations, reviews, and assistance" in the 
areas of "general management and organizations; information resources 
management; human resources; customer service; financial management; 
and other systems and internal controls and procedures."  These 
studies will "provide the basis for recommendations concerning how 
best to assure that the needs of the Department are met in a timely, 
cost-effective and technically sound manner."  The contractor might 
also be required to "assist in implementing" these recommendations.  
RFP  sec.  C.III.B.

The rest of the scope of work section consists of "representative 
samples" of the types of studies and services that might be ordered 
under the management studies contracts, organized under four 
categories:  financial management systems and internal control; 
general management and organizations; information resources 
management; and human resources.  Id.  Many of these sample services 
are couched in the most general of terms.[1]  Any specific request for 
services might require combinations of the techniques set forth under 
these four categories.
RFP  sec.  C.III.C.  The solicitation contained no other substantive 
information about the services that might be requested.

HUD received 29 proposals in response to the solicitation by the 
August 28, 1995 closing date, including one from Ervin.  Fifteen firms 
were included in the competitive range; Ervin's technical proposal was 
deemed technically unacceptable and eliminated from the competitive 
range.  Supplemental Agency Report (AR) at 3.  In the spring of 1996, 
HUD awarded management studies contracts to seven firms.[2]  
Operations Analysis Task Order Solicitation

On November 28, 1997, HUD sent the management studies contractors a 
copy of a task order solicitation to provide operations analysis to 
HUD's Office of Housing over an 18-month period.  Section I of the 
solicitation explains that the Office of Housing requires a 
contractor's assistance to enhance management and internal controls 
over the use of personnel and contract resources within the Office; to 
better track and measure use of those resources; and to evaluate and 
improve program performance based on utilization of those resources.  
Section III of the solicitation sets forth six services to be 
performed by the contractor, four of which are at issue here:[3]  (1) 
develop a protocol for developing a profile of HUD's multifamily 
housing inventory, and develop the initial profile; (2) prepare 
detailed maps of the lifeline of particular property types within the 
multifamily inventory; (3) document the Office's utilization of 
contract resources, recommend a protocol for evaluating the annual 
returns from contracting activity, and apply the protocol to conduct 
analyses; and (4) provide technical assistance to HUD staff to help it 
use the protocols developed under this task order.  

On December 31, Ervin filed an agency-level protest in which it 
argued, among other things, that this proposed task order was 
improperly beyond the scope of the management studies contracts.  HUD 
denied the protest on February 4, 1998, and Ervin filed a similar 
protest in our Office on February 9.  HUD states that it is currently 
reviewing the proposals submitted for this work, whose estimated value 
is $500,000.

Portfolio Reengineering Task Order Solicitation

On January 9, 1998, HUD sent the management studies contractors a copy 
of a task order solicitation to perform management studies and budget 
formulation for HUD's portfolio reengineering program over a 12-month 
period.  HUD has been conducting a demonstration program, known as 
portfolio reengineering, to restructure mortgages insured by the 
Federal Housing Administration for projects that receive above-market 
rental assistance under HUD's Section 8 program.[4]  The demonstration 
program has given HUD the opportunity to test various restructuring 
methods in meeting the program goals and objectives and to consider 
lessons learned in developing a permanent program.  See Portfolio 
Reengineering Task Order Solicitation Part I.A.  The task order's 
objective is to provide the Office of Housing with technical 
assistance associated with the program, as set forth under five 
services:  (1) review and document HUD's current policy and program 
for accomplishing restructurings, as well as the new, current, and 
proposed programs, and prepare operating procedures guides; (2) using 
these operating procedures guides, help HUD assess and document its 
organizational structure, staffing levels, and staff position 
descriptions for the portfolio reengineering program; (3) help HUD 
develop and implement a technical assistance/briefing program that 
will familiarize staff with the process identified in the operating 
procedures guides; (4) evaluate HUD's existing computerized tracking 
system, financial model, and network system to assess the adequacy of 
the data collection and the financial model results; and (5) help HUD 
develop budget scoring and credit subsidy positions for discussions 
with various agencies.  Id. at Part II.

Prompted by rumors he had heard that HUD planned to issue this task 
order under the management studies contracts, on January 14 Ervin 
wrote a letter to HUD's Secretary expressing concern.  After receiving 
no reply, Ervin filed the instant protest on January 23.[5]  HUD 
states that it is currently reviewing the proposals submitted for this 
work, whose estimated value is $1,728,000.

Protest Allegations

Ervin argues that both task orders are "far beyond the scope" of work 
allowed or contemplated in the management studies contracts.  In 
support of this contention, Ervin asserts that the work requested in 
the solicitation's SOW concerns the general management of HUD as an 
organization, not the specific programmatic matters covered by the 
task orders, and that HUD is using this "overly broad" SOW to justify 
either "poor procurement planning" or to "squeez[e] unrelated work in 
a favored contractor's contract."[6]  Protest B-279083 at 8; Protest 
B-279219 at 4.

DISCUSSION

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) requires "full and open 
competition" in government procurements as obtained through the use of 
competitive procedures.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  253(a)(1)(A) (1994).  Once a 
contract is awarded, GAO generally will not review modifications to 
that contract, such as a task order, because such matters are related 
to contract administration and are beyond the scope of GAO's bid 
protest function.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a); MCI Telecomms. Corp., 
B-276659.2, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  90 at 7.  An exception to this 
rule is where it is alleged that the task order is beyond the scope of 
the original contract, since the work covered by the task order 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).  Indian and Native Am. Employment 
and Training Coalition, B-216421, Apr. 16, 1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  432 at 2; 
Ervin and Assocs., Inc., supra, at 7-8. 

In determining whether a task order is beyond the scope of the 
contract originally ordered, GAO looks to whether there is a material 
difference between the task order and that contract.  MCI Telecomms. 
Corp., supra; see AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 
1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Evidence of such a material difference 
is found by reviewing the circumstances attending the procurement that 
was conducted; examining any changes in the type of work, performance 
period, and costs between the contract as awarded and as modified by 
the task order; and considering whether the original contract 
solicitation adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type 
of task order issued.  Ervin and Assocs., Inc., supra, at 8.  The 
overall inquiry is "whether the modification is of a nature which 
potential offerors would reasonably have anticipated."  Neal R. Gross 
& Co., Inc., B-237434, Feb. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  212 at 3, cited in 
AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d at 1207.

Ervin's protests require us to ascertain whether the types of services 
requested under the task orders represent a material change from those 
requested under the original solicitation; that is, whether a 
potential offeror on notice of the types of services described in the 
SOW would reasonably have anticipated being asked to provide the types 
of services set forth in these task orders.[7]  In the context of 
Ervin's protests, a comparison of the types of services requested 
under the original contracts and these task orders requires an 
examination of the organizational components for which services may be 
requested; the programs for which services may be requested; the 
categories of services that may be requested; and the degree of 
flexibility built into the services as described under the contracts.  
See CCL, Inc. v. United States, No. 97-721C, 1997 Fed. Cl. LEXIS 297, 
at *13 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 23, 1997).

The SOW does not specify any particular organizational components or 
programs for which services may be requested.  On the contrary, 
contractors may be asked to provide support to the Secretary, Deputy 
Secretary, and "all other organizational components of HUD," and 
"[t]he services under this contract may cover any of the functions for 
which the Department is responsible."  RFP  sec.  C.II, C.III.A.  As a 
result, while Ervin correctly asserts that the SOW does not 
specifically state that services may be performed in support of HUD's 
Office of Housing and its multifamily housing inventory program or 
portfolio reengineering program, the SOW plainly leaves open the 
possibility that such services may be required. 

The SOW does not limit the categories of services that might be 
requested, but adopts an all-encompassing approach to their 
description.  Contractors may be asked to provide "evaluations, 
reviews, and assistance" resulting in studies that lead to 
recommendations, and contractors may be asked to "assist in 
implementing" these recommendations.  RFP  sec.  C.III.B.  In addition, 
these categories of services may be requested in connection with a 
wide array of disciplines:  "general management and organizations; 
information resources management; human resources; customer service; 
financial management; and other systems and internal controls and 
procedures."  Id.  

To ascertain whether the services in the contracts are described in a 
sufficiently flexible manner to bring the task order services within 
their scope, we have  reviewed the language of both task orders and 
the management studies solicitation.  Our review of the sample 
services in the SOW in particular leads us to conclude that the 
anticipated services are described in such broad, general, and 
flexible terms that none of the task order services can be said to be 
beyond the scope of the contracts.  The following comparison of 
several task order services with relevant sample services from the SOW 
illustrates our conclusion that the breadth of the SOW brings the task 
order services within the scope of the contracts.  

Under the operations analysis task order, the contractor is to 
document the Office of Housing's utilization of contract resources and 
develop a protocol for evaluating the annual returns from contracting 
activity.  The protocol is to include a process for systematic 
internal evaluation of contracting results and cost benefits, and the 
contractor must apply the protocol to conduct analyses.  Operations 
Analysis Task Order at  sec.  III.E.  In support of its claim that this 
service is within the scope of the contracts, HUD cites a sample 
service from the financial management systems and internal control 
category--"develop performance measures and tracking/reporting 
mechanisms."  Since the task order service concerns a financial 
management system and/or an internal control, and since it constitutes 
both a measurement of performance and a tracking mechanism, we 
conclude that it is within the scope of the contracts. 

As an additional example, the task order requires the contractor to 
provide technical assistance to HUD staff to enable them to use the 
protocols developed under the task order.  Id. at  sec.  III.F.  This 
service is within the scope of two sample services from the human 
resource category--"provide supervisory training and technical 
assistance to support implementation of approved study 
recommendations" and "provide guidance to managers on methods for 
enhancing quality and productivity improvements."

With respect to the portfolio reengineering task order, the contractor 
is required to help HUD review and document its current policy and 
program requirements in accomplishing restructurings.  The 
documentation will result in operating procedures guides that address 
such things as asset allocation, underwriting, financing, closing, and 
servicing.  The contractor also is to review the new, current, and 
proposed programs to determine weak policies, procedures, and 
safeguards in delivery processes, and recommend improvements for 
incorporation into the documentation.  The contractor also is to 
develop an audit guide to identify internal control objectives and 
tests that can be used to determine if the program goals, objectives 
and requirements are being met.  Portfolio Reengineering Task Order at 
Part II.A.

In support of its position that this service is within the scope of 
the contracts, HUD cites two sample services from the financial 
management systems and internal control category--"perform reviews of 
new, current, and proposed programs
and financial systems to determine weak policies, procedures, and 
safeguards in delivery processes" and "develop performance measures 
and tracking/reporting mechanisms"--as well as a sample service from 
the general management and organizations category--"review management 
systems for coordination and issuance of program directives and 
changes."  Since at least a portion of this service falls under the 
category of internal controls and is a review of the new, current, and 
proposed portfolio reengineering program, and since the service is a 
review of the systems in place for managing restructuring in order to 
issue program directives and changes, it is within the scope of the 
contracts.

In addition, the contractor is required to use these operating 
procedures guides as a basis to help HUD assess and document the 
organizational structures for the portfolio reengineering program, 
staffing levels, and staff position descriptions.  The contractor is 
to prepare a guide covering these areas, and conduct management 
reviews of specified HUD field offices to evaluate these areas.  Id. 
at Part II.B.  We agree with HUD that two sample services from the 
general management and organizations category--"recommend policies and 
methodologies to determine and allocate staffing requirements for 
programs and services of the Department" and
"conduct management reviews of specified field and regional office 
organizations and provide evaluations of the use of staff and . . . 
recommendations for process improvements and required staffing 
levels"--are sufficiently similar to this service to bring it within 
the scope of the contracts.

In sum, since relevant language in the SOW sets forth the anticipated 
services in such broad, general, and flexible terms, we must conclude 
that potential offerors would reasonably have anticipated being asked 
to perform nearly any type of management support services, including 
those set forth in these solicitations.  As a result, neither 
challenged task order can be said to exceed the scope of the 
management studies contracts.       

This conclusion requires us to address Ervin's allegation that the SOW 
is overly broad.[8]  Ervin asserts that HUD believes "any program 
service . . . that has to be managed fits under the scope of work" in 
the management studies contracts, and complains that "[e]xtending this 
logic to its extreme easily leads to the conclusion that virtually 
every service HUD has to procure between now and the new millennium 
can and should be assigned to one of seven contractors under their 
[m]anagement [s]tudies contracts."  Comments B-279219 at 1.

HUD contends that this allegation is a challenge to the solicitation's 
terms which should have been raised prior to the August 28, 1995 
closing date for the receipt of the management studies proposals.  See 
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (protests based upon alleged improprieties in a 
solicitation which are apparent prior to the time set for receipt of 
initial proposals must be filed prior to that time).  Since Ervin 
waited more than 2 years after submitting a proposal to make this 
allegation, HUD asks us to dismiss the allegation as untimely.  Ervin 
does not dispute HUD's argument that the allegation is untimely, but 
asserts generally that we should consider its allegation under the 
significant issue exception to our timeliness regulations.  

Ervin's allegation is clearly untimely.  The alleged overbreadth of 
the management studies solicitation is plain upon its face and Ervin 
not only failed to file a timely protest, but elected to compete under 
the allegedly defective solicitation.  We are aware that a 
broadly-defined task order solicitation may appear to present the 
potential for expanded business opportunities, and that this potential 
may diminish a firm's incentive to timely challenge its terms.  
However, firms seeking to do business with the government must 
understand that, as a rule, their decision to compete under such a 
solicitation precludes their complaint about such a solicitation at 
any later date.  See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1).

Our timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a 
fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests 
expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement 
process.  Cook Constr. Co., Inc., B-248970.2, Mar. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
208 at 6-7.  To prevent those rules from becoming meaningless, 
exceptions are strictly construed and rarely used.    Schleicher 
Community Corrections Ctr., Inc., B-270499.3 et al., April 18, 1996,
96-1 CPD  para.  192 at 7.  Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(c), 
set forth two exceptions to our timeliness rules, including the 
significant issue exception.[9]  This exception is limited to untimely 
protests that have not been considered on the merits in a prior 
decision and that raise issues of widespread interest to the 
procurement community.  DynCorp, B-240980.2, Oct. 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
310
at 2-4.

We are not persuaded by HUD's assertion, citing three decisions, that 
we have previously considered this issue on the merits.  The services 
to be provided under the solicitations in those decisions were quite 
specifically described save for allegedly general or vague portions.  
Sunbelt Properties, Inc., B-249469 et al.,
Nov. 17, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  353 (solicitation for real estate asset 
management services contained allegedly general references to services 
"as necessary" or "as conditions warrant"); Toxicology Testing Serv., 
Inc., B-219131.2, Oct. 28, 1985,
85-2 CPD  para.  469 (solicitation for urinalysis testing contained 
allegedly general reference to the offices to which reports were 
submitted); University Research Corp., B-216461, Feb. 19, 1985, 85-1 
CPD  para.  210 (solicitation requesting reception, orientation, and 
hospitality services contained general references to certain details).  
In contrast, the issue presented by Ervin's protests is the alleged 
overbreadth of the entire statement of work in a solicitation for an 
indefinite-quantity task order contract.  We have not previously 
decided this issue on the merits. 

Our determination that an issue is of widespread interest to the 
procurement community rests upon a conclusion that consideration of 
the issue would be in the interest of the procurement system.  
Dyncorp, supra, at 3.  As a general matter, the resolution of an issue 
that relates only to the protested solicitation does not fall within 
the exception because it would have no useful application to future 
procurements.  Id.; see also Premiere Vending, B-256560, July 5, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  8 at 2 n.2; Gene Quigley, Jr., B-241565, Feb. 19, 1991, 
91-1 CPD  para.  182 at 3.  In our view, the resolution of the issue 
presented in these protests would have limited application to future 
procurements because the solicitation predates the current legal 
framework governing task order contracts.  

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), Pub. L. No. 
103-355, 108 Stat. 3243 (1994), revised the legal framework under 
which task order contracts such as this one may be awarded.  In 
section 1054 of FASA, 108 Stat. 3243, 3261, Congress codified 
authorization for the use of task and delivery order contracts by 
amending Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
Act of 1949, 41 U.S.C.  sec.  251 et seq., to insert new provisions 
regarding such contracts.  This amendment was made effective October 
1, 1995.  FASA,  sec.  10001(b)(3), 108 Stat. 3243, 3404; 60 Fed. Reg. 
49723, 49725 (1995).[10]    

Among other things, solicitations for task and delivery order 
contracts must include "[a] statement of work, specification, or other 
description that reasonably describes the general scope, nature, 
complexity, and purpose of the services or property to be procured 
under the contract." 41 U.S.C.  sec.  253h(b)(3). The implementing 
regulatory provision, Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  
16.504(a)(4)(iii), requires a solicitation for task or delivery order 
contracts to include a "statement of work, specifications, or other 
description, that reasonably describes the general scope, nature, 
complexity, and purpose of the supplies or services to be acquired 
under the contract in a manner that will enable a prospective offeror 
to decide whether to submit an offer."  We discussed the issue of 
overly broad work statements in task and delivery order contracts in a 
Letter to the Acting Secretary of the Army, B-277979, Jan. 26, 1998, 
98-1 CPD  para.  51.  Congress also established a preference for awarding, 
to the maximum extent practicable, multiple task or delivery order 
contracts for the same or similar services or property, 41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253h(d)(3)(A), and stated that all contractors awarded such contracts 
generally shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for 
all orders in excess of $2500 issued under the contracts.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253j(b).

Procurements utilizing a task order contract vehicle subject to the 
above provisions must be considered under those provisions.  However, 
as HUD points out, the management studies solicitation was issued, and 
initial proposals were submitted, prior to October 1, 1995, the 
effective date of these provisions.  Since the resolution of the issue 
presented by these protests would not reflect an analysis of the 
current legal framework, which is somewhat different from the prior 
legal framework, it would not be in the interest of the procurement 
system for us to invoke the significant issue exception here.

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Examples of these broadly-worded sample services include "[d]evelop 
methods to quantify risks of weak or ineffective controls"; "[d]evelop 
performance measures and tracking/reporting mechanisms"; "[e]valuate 
the effectiveness of the Department's management planning and 
evaluation processes"; "[p]erform reviews of new, current, and 
proposed programs and financial systems to determine weak policies, 
procedures, and safeguards in delivery processes"; and "[r]eview 
management systems for coordination and issuance of program directives 
and changes."

2. These firms are Abacus Technology Corporation; Ernst & Young, 
L.L.P.; Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.; Anderson Consulting; Maria Elena 
Torano Associates, Inc.; Soza & Company; and Price Waterhouse, L.L.P.  

3. Since Ervin apparently believes that two of the six task order 
services are within the scope of the management studies contracts, 
Protest B-279219 at 5, 7 n.4, we need not address them here.  

4. A detailed discussion of this program can be found in Multifamily 
Housing:  Effects of HUD's Portfolio Reengineering Proposal 
(GAO/RCED-97-7, Nov. 1, 1996); Multifamily Housing:  HUD's 
Mark-to-Market Proposal (GAO/T-RCED-95-230),
June 15, 1995); see also Ervin and Assocs., Inc., B-278850, Mar. 23, 
1998, 
98-1 CPD  para.  89 at 3-4.

5. While HUD argues that Ervin's protest should be dismissed as 
untimely because Ervin possessed its basis for protest when it heard 
these rumors, a protest grounded upon mere speculation or rumor 
provides no basis for questioning the propriety of a procurement.  See 
King-Fisher Co., B-256849, July 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  62 at 3.  The 
record shows that after Ervin heard these rumors it took diligent 
efforts to ascertain information forming the basis for its protest, 
and filed the protest when it became clear that no information was 
immediately forthcoming.  That Ervin was eventually forced to file a 
protest based upon these rumors does not make the protest untimely.  
Ervin and Assocs., Inc., supra, at 7.

6. Ervin makes numerous claims of alleged improprieties on the part of 
HUD in connection with the portfolio reengineering program, some of 
which relate to one of the management studies contractors.  All of 
these are related to allegations raised in two lawsuits filed by 
Ervin.  Ervin and Assocs., Inc. v. Helen Dunlap, Civil Action No. 
96-CV1253 (D.D.C. filed June 5, 1996); Ervin and Assocs., Inc. v. 
United States, No. 96-504C (Fed. Cl. filed Sept. 24, 1997).  As we 
have advised Ervin, our Office generally will not consider any protest 
when the matter involved is the subject of litigation before a court 
of competent jurisdiction.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.11(b) (1997); Robinson 
Enters.--Request for Recon., B-238594.2, Apr. 19, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  402 
at 2.  Ervin's allegation that HUD intends to direct a sole-source 
"contract" to a particular management studies contractor based upon 
that firm's political contributions is both speculative and premature 
and will not be considered.  VSE Corp.--Recon. and Entitlement to 
Costs, B-258204.3, B-258204.4, Dec. 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  260 at 2. 

7. It is undisputed that neither task order represents a material 
change from the cost or period of performance of the original 
contracts.   

8. There is no evidence to support Ervin's claim that HUD is using 
this allegedly overbroad SOW to justify poor procurement planning or 
to direct unrelated work to a favored contractor.

9. The other exception, which is clearly not applicable here, may be 
invoked where there is good cause for the untimely filing.  Id.

10. Section 10001(c) of FASA, 108 Stat. 3243, 3404, enumerates 
specific provisions of the Act which apply immediately upon the date 
of enactment; section 1054 is not one of them.