TITLE:   Corel Corporation, B-283862, November 18, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283862
DATE:  November 18, 1999
**********************************************************************
Corel Corporation, B-283862, November 18, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Corel Corporation

File: B-283862

Date: November 18, 1999

DIGEST

Statutory restriction set forth at 41 U.S.C. sect. 253j(d) (1994) precludes the
review by General Accounting Office of a bid protest challenging the
propriety of a delivery order issued under an indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity contract, regardless of the propriety of the issuing
agency's underlying determination or conduct.

DECISION

Corel Corporation protests the issuance of a delivery order to Government
Technologies Services, Inc. (GTSI) by the Department of Labor, for certain
Microsoft Corporation products.

We dismiss the protest.

The record reflects that the delivery order was issued by the Department of
Labor under indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract No.
NIH263-97-D-0311, operated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
Department of Health & Human Services.

The Department of Labor (DOL) argues that our Office cannot consider the
protest because 41 U.S.C. sect. 253j(d) (1994) 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." See also Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 16.505(a)(7).

The protester responds that our Office should consider the protest because
DOL's determination to purchase Microsoft products under the NIH contract is
tantamount to an improper procurement of the Microsoft products on a sole
source basis. In this regard, the protester contends that DOL's
determination to purchase Microsoft products was made after considerable
internal review by the agency, including the consideration of a report
prepared by a contractor at the agency's request which recommended the
purchase of Microsoft products. The protester adds that DOL's choice of a
delivery order issued under the NIH contract to procure the Microsoft
products should not act as a bar to our Office's review of the agency's
actions, in that the protest "is not a complaint against the delivery
vehicle for the Microsoft products or the fulfillment agent [GTSI]," but
rather constitutes a challenge to "the underlying decision by DOL to select
Microsoft products on a sole source basis." Protester's Response to the
Agency's Request for Summary Dismissal at 9.

Despite the protester's view to the contrary, we see no reason why the
statutory restriction on protests set forth at 41 U.S.C. sect. 253j(d) is not
applicable here. The protester does not argue that the order increases the
scope, period, or maximum value of the contract, or implements a
"downselect" that results in the elimination of one of the vendors to which
a delivery order contract has been issued from consideration for future
orders. See Electro-Voice, Inc., B-278319; B-278319.2, Jan.15, 1998, 98-1
CPD para. 23 at 2. Accordingly, whether DOL's issuance of the delivery order to
GTSI is tantamount to the award of a contract on a sole source basis is
irrelevant. The vehicle by which DOL has elected to purchase the Microsoft
products is a delivery order issued under an indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity contract operated by NIH, so that our Office, by virtue
of the statutory restriction on protests set forth at 41 U.S.C. sect.  253j(d),
is without authority to consider protests connected to the issuance of
delivery orders, regardless of the propriety of the issuing agency's
underlying determinations or conduct (absent certain exceptions not
applicable here).

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States